From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lentine v. Fundaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1971
36 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

January 25, 1971


In an arbitration proceeding, the appeals are as follows from an order and a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 6, 1970 and September 22, 1970, respectively: (1) from so much of the order as (a) denied two motions by appellant to confirm the arbitrators' award and (b) remitted the matter to the arbitrators for clarification of the award, and (2) from the entire judgment, which granted respondents' motion to modify the award and denied the request of appellant for relief in his favor. Judgment reversed, on the law; respondents' motion to modify the award denied; award, as clarified by the arbitrators, confirmed; and proceeding remanded to the Special Term for entry of a new judgment in accordance with the foregoing disposition. Appeal from the order dismissed as moot in view of the determination herein of the appeal from the judgment. Appellant is awarded $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. CPLR 7511 (subds. [b], [c]) sets forth all the grounds upon which vacatur or modification of an arbitration award may be predicated. None of such grounds has been demonstrated in the present record. The parties herein entered into a partnership for the purpose of constructing and operating an apartment house in Brookyln, New York. Soon after, differences arose and plaintiffs brought suit to dissolve the partnership. On defendant's motion, various disputes between the parties were submitted to arbitration in accordance with the partnership agreement. The arbitrators' award, as rendered, may not be vacated for errors of law or fact or the absence of reasoning or calculations to justify the award ( Matter of Colletti [ Mesh], 23 A.D.2d 245, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 460). As to plaintiffs' contention that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in allegedly finding unequal capital contributions and directing unequal distribution of the assets upon dissolution, it is clear that the partnership agreement is ambiguous on these points and that it was for the arbitrators to determine what the agreement means and to enforce it accordingly. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lentine v. Fundaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1971
36 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Lentine v. Fundaro

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH LENTINE et al., Respondents, v. SALVATORE FUNDARO, Appellant. In…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

The Bd. of Educ. v. United Fed'n of Teachers

Courts are limited to the grounds for vacatur set forth in CPLR 7511 and an award cannot be vacated based on…

Matter of Sussco Exterior v. Hercules Constr

Finally, we note that an arbitrator is not generally obligated to state the reasons for his award (see,…