From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jain v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2006
27 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8056N, 8057N.

March 9, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered August 23, 2004, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, and order, same court and Justice, entered September 17, 2004, reaffirming the earlier order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Devendra Kumar Jain, appellant pro se.

Francine E. Menaker, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ., concur.


The petition set forth no statutory basis for vacating the award (CPLR 7511 [b]). In his reply papers, the pro se petitioner alleged various factual, legal and procedural errors and claims of bias. The court's consideration of these claims, raised for the first time in reply, was an improvident exercise of discretion ( see McNair v. Lee, 24 AD3d 159). Nevertheless, even this late-offered data provided no basis for vacating the award, which had a plausible basis ( Matter of Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Chesley, 7 AD3d 368, 372). Petitioner did not sustain his burden of showing bias ( see New York Rests. Exch. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 226 AD2d 312, 315, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 861).


Summaries of

Jain v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2006
27 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Jain v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1727
809 N.Y.S.2d 911

Citing Cases

LOBO v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Petitioner's argument in reply that he was not given proper resources to help him improve cannot be…