From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton Partners Ltd. v. Singer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2002
290 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

5893

January 17, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered April 24, 2001, which, upon the parties' respective motions to confirm and vacate an arbitration award, remanded the matter to the arbitrators for clarification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Leonard A. Spivak for petitioners-appellants.

Julian R. Birnbaum for respondent-respondent.

Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach, Marlow, JJ.


This Court has recognized the authority of a court, before which there is a petition to confirm or to vacate an arbitration award, to remand the matter to the arbitration panel when the panel's award does not dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties or indicate the panel's intention with respect to it (see, Matter of Ritchie Bldg. Co, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 9 A.D.2d 880), or when the award is ambiguous and not sufficiently explicit, since a court may not impose its own interpretation of the award (see, Matter of Jolson v. Forest Labs., Inc., 15 A.D.2d 901). Here, the award is not only ambiguous as to the intent of the panel, but also fails to address and dispose of the issues raised by the parties or to make any specific findings of fact or credibility. Given the diametrically opposed positions of the parties, the award, which apparently denied both sets of claims on the merits, cannot be harmonized or interpreted without speculation as to the panel's intent.

Contrary to petitioners' contention, the panel's treatment of the Form U-5 did not resolve the issue as to whether respondent was terminated for cause. Even if this Court were to adopt petitioners' reasoning that the panel's intent to find respondent's discharge justified can be inferred from its treatment of the form, such an inference would not ultimately be tenable in light of the panel's evidently contradictory coincident denial of petitioners' claims. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in remanding for clarification as to the intent of the panel.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hamilton Partners Ltd. v. Singer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2002
290 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Hamilton Partners Ltd. v. Singer

Case Details

Full title:HAMILTON PARTNERS LIMITED, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS v. JONATHAN…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 219

Citing Cases

Wydra v. Brach

But the immediate problem with the Decision of the Bais Din is not the method of calculation, but the lack of…

Transp. Workers Union of Greater N.Y. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited (see Matter of Westchester County Correction…