Ingham v. Thompson, 113 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Ingham v. Thompson, 113 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: AIG v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York (nyappdiv, 2015-02-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AIG v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although the IAS court, in analyzing the petitions, should have applied CPLR 7511, instead of CPLR 5015 (see Ingham v Thompson, 113 AD3d 534, 534 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 866 [2014]), the court correctly granted the petitions, as petitioners did not have proper notice of these compulsory arbitrations (see 12 NYCRR subpart 325-6; see also Matter of Motor Veh.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Diana Joy Ingham, Derivatively on Behalf of Cobalt Asset Management, L.P.
v.
Charles R. Thompson, , , Nominal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 2014.
113 A.D.3d 534
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

CPLR 7511 provides the exclusive grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, and none of those grounds have been presented here (see Frankel v Sardis, 76 AD3d 136, 139 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of New York State Nurses Assn. [Nyack Hosp.], 258 AD2d 303 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 810 [1999]). Hence, the Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the arbitration award, and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate it.

Respondents’ arguments that plaintiff should have been disqualified from maintaining the arbitration proceeding alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent mismanagement, and waste of assets, because she initially asserted individual claims alongside the derivative claims on behalf of the limited partnership, and settled with one of the defendants on behalf of herself and the limited partnership, are unavailing. Arbitrators are not bound by the principles of substantive law[*535] and, short of complete irrationality, they may craft an award to reach a just result (see Matter of Raisler Corp. [New York City Hous. Auth.], 32 NY2d 274, 282-283 [1973]; Lentine v Fundaro, 29 NY2d 382, 385-386 [1972]). Even mistakes of fact and law do not warrant vacatur of an otherwise rational award (see Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146, 154-155 [1995]). Here, the parties extensively briefed and argued the issue of whether plaintiff could maintain the proceeding before the three-member panel, which unanimously ruled that plaintiff had cured any defect by withdrawing her individual claims, which the panel also dismissed. Moreover, the panel approved the settlement, and conditioned the award on plaintiffs turning over the settlement funds to the limited partnership. It cannot be said that the panel’s determination concerning plaintiffs purported conflict of interest evinced complete or total irrationality, and hence, the award should be confirmed (see Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d 308 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.