From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).


This arbitration proceeding arises out of petitioner's claim that respondent, upon termination of employment, closed out various accounts maintained by petitioner to which credits erroneously had been made in respondent's favor. Petitioner sought to recover money damages in the amount of $499,500.

Recognizing that it rests within the sound discretion of an arbitrator to grant or refuse an adjournment, we agree that respondent failed to demonstrate misconduct on the part of the arbitrators in denying further adjournments, and therefore, vacatur of the arbitration award, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) is not warranted (see, Matter of Herskovitz v Kaye Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 272).

Respondent's repeated requests for adjournments, over the course of one year, and numerous substitutions of counsel support the view that the arbitrators committed no abuse of discretion in denying the request for a further adjournment (Harwyn Luggage v Henry Rosenfeld, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 747, affd 58 N.Y.2d 1063). Furthermore, respondent failed to demonstrate a genuine medical emergency (cf., International Components Corp. v Klaiber, 59 A.D.2d 853). The record establishes that respondent had undergone surgery a few years earlier and was recuperating. To the extent her recuperation did not preclude other activities in which she engaged during the year preceding the arbitration hearing, it cannot be said that she had suffered a "genuine" medical emergency which required an adjournment (supra; Matter of Omega Contr. v Maropakis Contr., 160 A.D.2d 942).

Last, we note that the same court (Fingerhood, J.), on a prior motion denied respondent's motion to stay arbitration on the ground that she did not agree to arbitration. Thus, we reject, based upon doctrines of law of the case, and res judicata, the vague and non-specific argument that her signature upon the agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Meyer

Case Details

Full title:SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., Respondent, v. CATALINA MEYER, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 465

Citing Cases

McMahon v. Evans

Given petitioner's failure to provide the arbitrators with some explanation of the need for the adjournment…

Matter of M.T.M. Beverages v. Pepsi Cola

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. It is well settled that the decision of "[w]hether to…