Dowleyne v. New York City Transit Auth., 816 N.E.2d 191 (NY 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Dowleyne v. New York City Transit Auth., 816 N.E.2d 191 (NY 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Daesang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co. (nyappdiv, 2018-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Daesang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Auth. , 3 NY3d 633, 634 [2004] [reversing vacatur of an award "because (the [*9]court) improperly substituted its factual finding for that of a majority of the arbitration panel"]). [FN14] This brings us to NutraSweet's fourth counterclaim, for breach of contract, the dismissal of which by the arbitrators — first (in the partial award) on the ground that NutraSweet had not asserted any claim for breach of contract independent of its dismissed rescission claims, then (in the final award) on the ground that NutraSweet had waived any freestanding claim to recover damages for breach of contract …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
NY · 2006 · confidence medium
Auth., 3 NY3d 633, 634 [2004] [reversing the Appellate Division’s vacatur of an arbitration award “because it improperly substituted its factual finding for that of a majority of the arbitration panel”]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Leslie Dowleyne
v.
New York City Transit Authority
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 29, 2004.
816 N.E.2d 191
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure, EC., New York City (Arthur Z. Schwartz and Elizabeth M. Pilecki of counsel), for appellants., Richard Schoolman, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and[*634] the judgment of Supreme Court confirming the arbitration award reinstated, with costs.

The Appellate Division’s vacatur cannot stand because it improperly substituted its factual finding for that of a majority of the arbitration panel.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, in a memorandum.