From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldberg v. Steiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2008
52 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

holding that respondents' attempt to withdraw their request for attorneys' fees in connection with their counterclaim did not warrant vacating the award for such fees where "there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding"

Summary of this case from Bear Stearns v. Fulco

Opinion

No. 3985.

June 24, 2008.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 17, 2007, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award and awarded petitioner the principal amount of $453,468.62, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman Steiner LLP, New York (John C. Ohman of counsel), for appellants.

Jeffrey A. Jannuzzo, New York, for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Gonzalez, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.


The arbitration award was properly confirmed as it did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority ( see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37; CPLR 7511 [b]). Indeed, the arbitrator offered a well-reasoned justification for his interpretation of the parties' agreement, and there exists no basis for vacatur thereof ( see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326). As for the award of counsel fees to petitioner, it was respondents that first sought such fees in their counterclaim, and mutual demands for counsel fees in an arbitration proceeding constitute, in effect, an agreement to submit the issue to arbitration, with the resultant award being valid and enforceable ( see Matter of Warner Bros. Records [PPX Enters.], 7 AD3d 330; compare Matter of Matza v Oshman, Helfenstein Matza, 33 AD3d 493, 494-495). While respondents may have attempted to withdraw the request for attorneys' fees in connection with their counterclaim, there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding.


Summaries of

Goldberg v. Steiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2008
52 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

holding that respondents' attempt to withdraw their request for attorneys' fees in connection with their counterclaim did not warrant vacating the award for such fees where "there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding"

Summary of this case from Bear Stearns v. Fulco

holding that respondents' attempt to withdraw their request for attorneys' fees in connection with their counterclaim did not warrant vacating the award for such fees “where there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding.”

Summary of this case from Bear Stearns & Co.  v. Fulco
Case details for

Goldberg v. Steiner

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LEE A. GOLDBERG, Respondent, v. THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 24, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5744
860 N.Y.S.2d 93

Citing Cases

In the Matter of The Arbitration Between Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. v. Int'l Capital & Mgmt. Co. Llc

In order for attorneys' fees to be appropriately awarded in an arbitration, they must be provided for in a…

N.Y. City Transit v. Transport Workers

Here, the arbitrator determined that the "credible evidence" before him demonstrated that dismissal was…