Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Seneca Insurance Company, respondent, v. Ruday Realty Corp., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Argued—March 1, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendants Ruday Realty Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp., from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated January 26, 2010, which granted the motion of the plaintiff, Seneca Insurance Company, pursuant to CPLR 7510, to confirm a mediation award dated July 27, 2009, made against the plaintiff and in their favor in the principal sum of only $385,000 on their cross claim for legal fees and expenses, denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate and/or to increase the mediation award to the total sum of $1,204,089.10, and directed entry of a money judgment in their favor on the mediation award in the principal sum of only $385,000.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the contentions of the defendants Ruday Realty Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp. (hereinafter together the appellants), vacatur and/or an increase of the subject mediation award is not warranted since the award did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not manifestly exceed a specific, enumerated limitation on the mediator's power (see Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. Town of Callicoon Unit ], 70 N.Y.2d 907, 909; see also Matter of Local 456, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of Yonkers, 75 AD3d 555; Matter of Scher Law Firm, LLP v 87–10 51st Ave. Owners Corp., 52 AD3d 611; Matter of Balis v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 50 AD3d 682).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, BELEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–02707 (Index No. 499 /04)
Decided: August 09, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)