From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Damast v. Damast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1983
95 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

June 6, 1983


In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeals are from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Composto, J.), dated February 10, 1982, which, inter alia, granted petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied appellant's cross motion to vacate said award, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 27, 1982, which denied appellant's motion to set aside and vacate the order and judgment and for a new arbitration hearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Order and judgment (one paper) dated February 10, 1982 and order dated July 27, 1982 affirmed, with one bill of costs. Any errors of fact which may have been committed by the arbitrator, who did not exceed his powers, are an insufficient basis for setting aside the award ( Matter of Sprinzen [ Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 629; Matter of Decicco [ Viviano], 32 A.D.2d 541). In addition, newly discovered evidence is not a ground upon which an award may be vacated ( Matter of Mole [ Queens Ins. Co. of Amer.], 14 A.D.2d 1). Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Damast v. Damast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1983
95 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Matter of Damast v. Damast

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MURRAY DAMAST, Respondent, v. ABRAHAM DAMAST, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 6, 1983

Citations

95 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Matter of Karlin v. Roman

eed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (hereinafter National Marine). Roman, Garris and O'Shea wanted…

Karlan Constr. v. Burdick Associates Owners

Burdick's contention that it received some of the information relating to the bias of one of the arbitrators…