Summary
finding no abuse of discretion when the arbitrators denied a request for an adjournment based on the attorney's ill health because the request was not supported with competent documentation
Summary of this case from Ottawa Office Integration Inc. v. FTF Business Systems, Inc.Opinion
April 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Petitioner commenced the arbitration by way of a demand dated February 8, 1988. The record demonstrates a persistent pattern on respondent's part of delaying hearings in this matter between October 1988 and March 1990, by which time the claims were more than two years old. One or two days before the scheduled hearing date, respondent's attorney requested an adjournment on the ground of his illness. The request was denied, and was renewed at the beginning of the hearing by another attorney from the law firm representing respondents. Despite the attorney's knowledge of the prior denial, no documentation supporting the claim of illness was offered. The arbitrators again denied an adjournment, and in the award noted the lack of documentation as the ground for the denial of the request. In these circumstances, Supreme Court properly found respondent had failed to carry its burden to establish misconduct on the arbitrators' part sufficient to vacate the award (Matter of Ottley v. Mostoff, 79 A.D.2d 964, affd 54 N.Y.2d 698). Such a finding of misconduct would require a determination that the arbitrators had abused their discretion (supra; Matter of Herskovitz [Kaye Assocs.], 170 A.D.2d 272). Any such conclusion is precluded by the fact that the basis for the requested adjournment was never supported by competent documentation, either before the arbitrator or even in the subsequent judicial proceeding (see, Matter of A R Constr. Co. v. Gorlin-Okun, Inc., 41 A.D.2d 876).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.