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.
IN RE: Joseph Palermo, respondent, v. Dariusz Winnicki, etc., appellant.
Argued—April 9, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated July 11, 2011, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated February 28, 2012, which granted the petition to confirm the award.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The record does not support the appellant's contention that the arbitration panel miscalculated the amount of the attorney's fee to be refunded to the respondent, or that the award contained a mistake in the description of the property (see CPLR 7511[c][1]; Matter of Cupero v. Herman, 50 AD3d 791). Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the arbitration panel based the award upon a matter not submitted to it (see CPLR 7511[c][2] ). Therefore, there is no basis for modifying the award (see Matter of Cupero v. Herman, 50 AD3d at 791).
Further, there is no basis for vacating the award, as the arbitration panel did not exceed its power, or imperfectly execute the award (see CPLR 7511[b] [1][iii]; Matter of Meisels v. Uhr, 79 N.Y.2d 526, 536), and there is nothing in the record to support the appellant's contention that he was prejudiced by misconduct (see CPLR 7511[b][1][i]; Matter of Hausknecht v Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C., 24 AD3d 778, 779; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, 227 A.D.2d 563).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the arbitration award.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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: 2012–06280 (Index No. 24990/11)
Decided: May 22, 2013
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)