governing legal principle in New York

2026The record does not establish that the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet either refused to apply it or ignored it altogether ( see Wien & Malkin LLP, 6 NY3d at 481).

2026"To . . . vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" ( Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 6 NY3d at 481 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Panos v Mid Hudson Med.

2025Specifically, petitioner did not make the required showing that the arbitration panel acted in "manifest disregard" of the applicable law, as petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrators "knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether" ( Wallace v Buttar , 378 F3d 182, 189 [2d Cir 2004]; see also Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v Refco Sec., LLC , 83 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2011]).

2022"To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find 'both that (1) the arbitrator[ ] knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrator[ ] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case'" ( Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 6 NY3d at 481, quoting Wallace v Buttar , 378 F3d 182, 189 [2d Cir]).

2024"To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrator[ ] knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrator[ ] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" ( Schiferle , 155 AD3d at 127 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wien & Malkin LLP , 6 NY3d at 481 ; Barone v Haskins , 193 AD3d 1388, 1391 [4th Dept 2021], appeal dismissed 37 NY3d 1032 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 919 [2022]).

2024In any event, even if the two prior arbitration awards constituted substantive law, inasmuch as the record establishes that the arbitrator considered, but distinguished, those arbitration awards, we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrator "knew of a governing legal principle" that was "well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" and "yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether" ( Schiferle , 155 AD3d at 127 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP v Ironshore Specialty Ins.

2024Under Delaware or New York law, the managing member of an LLC owes fiduciary duties to the LLC members ( see Feeley v NHAOCG, LLC , 62 A3d 649, 660 [Del Ch 2012]; Pokoik v Pokoik , 115 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2014]).

2024Under Delaware or New York law, the managing member of an LLC owes fiduciary duties to the LLC members ( see Feeley v NHAOCG, LLC , 62 A3d 649, 660 [Del Ch 2012]; Pokoik v Pokoik , 115 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2014]).

2023As the US Supreme Court stated in Oxford Health Plans Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter ( 569 US 564, 569 [2013]), "[b]ecause the parties 'bargained for the arbitrator's construction of their agreement,' an arbitral decision 'even arguably construing or applying the contract' must stand, regardless of a court's view of its (de)merits." Here, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in reasoning that "the plain meaning of the words of the arbitration clause unambiguously permitted class arbitrations." As the arbitrator noted, SG intentionally broadened the standard AAA arbi

2023As the US Supreme Court stated in Oxford Health Plans Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter ( 569 US 564, 569 [2013]), "[b]ecause the parties 'bargained for the arbitrator's construction of their agreement,' an arbitral decision 'even arguably construing or applying the contract' must stand, regardless of a court's view of its (de)merits." Here, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in reasoning that "the plain meaning of the words of the arbitration clause unambiguously permitted class arbitrations." As the arbitrator noted, SG intentionally broadened the standard AAA arbi

2018Off., Inc. , 344 F3d 255, 263 [2d Cir 2003])" ( Wien & Malkin , 6 NY3d at 480-481 [footnotes omitted]). [FN11] We turn first to the arbitrators' dismissal of NutraSweet's second and third counterclaims for equitable rescission of the transaction based on fraud in the inducement.

2006Off., Inc., 344 F3d 255, 263 [2d Cir 2003]).

2017“To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find ‘both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case’ ” (id. at 481, quoting Wallace v Buttar, 378 F3d 182, 189 [2004]; see Transparent Value, L.L.C. v Johnson, 93 AD3d 599, 601 [2012] [recapitulating standard]; see e.g.

2017"To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case' " (id. at 481, quoting Wallace v Buttar, 378 F3d 182, 189 ; see Transparent Value, L.L.C. v Johnson, 93 AD3d 599, 601 [recapitulating standard]; see e.g.

2013The particular vagaries of how long it takes to procure the structured dismissal of a bankruptcy case are not within the usual knowledge of an ordinary person, nor are they purely a matter of bankruptcy law which the court could have determined without the benefit of an expert opinion (compare Wo Yee Hing Realty Corp. v Stern, 99 AD3d 58, 63 [1st Dept 2012] [expert opinion was not required where “the mechanics of the governing legal framework (of a Tike-kind exchange’ under Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 1031) (we)re undisputed, and the issue of proximate cause turn(ed) on the discrete factu

2013The particular vagaries of how long it takes to procure the structured dismissal of a bankruptcy case are not within the usual knowledge of an ordinary person, nor are they purely a matter of bankruptcy law which the court could have determined without the benefit of an expert opinion (compare Wo Yee Hing Realty Corp. v Stern, 99 AD3d 58, 63 [1st Dept 2012] [expert opinion was not required where “the mechanics of the governing legal framework (of a Tike-kind exchange’ under Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 1031) (we)re undisputed, and the issue of proximate cause turn(ed) on the discrete factu

2026Group, P.C. , 204 AD3d 1016, 1018 ).

2025Group, P.C. , 204 AD3d 1016, 1018 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 6 NY3d at 481 ).

2017Rather, the award is subject to vacatur “only if a reviewing court finds both that (1) the arbitrator [ ] knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrator [ ] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case” (Wallace v Buttar, 378 F3d 182, 189 [2d Cir 2004] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Duferco, 333 F3d at 389 ).

2008Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F3d 383 [2d Cir 2003].) To vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, it must be shown that (1) “the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether,” and (2) “the law ignored by the arbitrators [was] well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” (Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d at 310 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) “It is not enough that the moving party provide proof that the arbitrator was aware of the governing legal principle; there must

2017A court must determine whether "the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether," and whether the governing law ignored was "well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" ( Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg , 13 AD3d 308 , 310 [1st Dept 2004]).

2017A court must determine whether "the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether," and whether the governing law ignored was "well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" ( Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg , 13 AD3d 308 , 310 [1st Dept 2004]).

2008Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F3d 383 [2d Cir 2003].) To vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, it must be shown that (1) “the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether,” and (2) “the law ignored by the arbitrators [was] well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” (Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d at 310 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) “It is not enough that the moving party provide proof that the arbitrator was aware of the governing legal principle; there must

2008Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F3d 383 [2d Cir 2003].) To vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, it must be shown that (1) “the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether,” and (2) “the law ignored by the arbitrators [was] well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” (Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d at 310 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) “It is not enough that the moving party provide proof that the arbitrator was aware of the governing legal principle; there must

2004As we noted in Sawtelle v Waddell & Reed, Inc. ( 304 AD2d 103, 108 [2003]): “Under the [FAA], a court may vacate an arbitration award either on the grounds set forth in section 10 (a) of the FAA or on one of the several judicially recognized ‘nonstatutory’ grounds, such as irrationality . . . manifest disregard of the law ... or public policy . . . “ ‘Manifest disregard “clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law” [citation omitted]’ and ‘to modify or vacate an award on this ground, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal princip

2003Since arbitration awards are, under federal law, subject to extremely limited review, the “showing required to avoid summary confirmation of an arbitration award is high”; a party moving to vacate the award has the burden of proof (Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, BV v Standard Microsystems Corp., 103 F3d 9, 12 [2d Cir]; Halligan, 148 F3d at 202 ). “[M]anifest disregard ‘clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law’ [citation omitted]” and “to modify or vacate an award on this ground, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principl

2004Moreover, manifest disregard of the law means more than an error or misunderstanding of the applicable law (see Sawtelle, 304 AD2d at 108 ).

2004As we noted in Sawtelle v Waddell & Reed, Inc. ( 304 AD2d 103, 108 [2003]): “Under the [FAA], a court may vacate an arbitration award either on the grounds set forth in section 10 (a) of the FAA or on one of the several judicially recognized ‘nonstatutory’ grounds, such as irrationality . . . manifest disregard of the law ... or public policy . . . “ ‘Manifest disregard “clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law” [citation omitted]’ and ‘to modify or vacate an award on this ground, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal princip

2026The relevant inquiry is not the precise distance the object traveled, or the amount of kinetic energy generated, but whether the injury was the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related risk (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous.

2026Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide safety devices that give proper protection to workers exposed to elevation-related risks, and it imposes absolute liability where a violation of the statute is a proximate cause of the injury (see Saint v Syracuse Supply Co., 25 NY3d 117, 124 [2015]; Ross v Curtis–Palmer Hydro–Elec.

2025Our case law makes clear, however, that the governing legal standard asks whether the municipal body purported to "contractually bind[ ] its successors in [an] area[ ] relating to governance," with no balancing test involved ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50).

2025Our case law makes clear, however, that the governing legal standard asks whether the municipal body purported to "contractually bind[ ] its successors in [an] area[ ] relating to governance," with no balancing test involved ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50 ).

2025Specifically, petitioner did not make the required showing that the arbitration panel acted in "manifest disregard" of the applicable law, as petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrators "knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether" ( Wallace v Buttar , 378 F3d 182, 189 [2d Cir 2004]; see also Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v Refco Sec., LLC , 83 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2011]).

2025On the contrary, it is apparent from a review of the arbitration award that the panel considered the language of this contract and the authorities cited by Zurich and analyzed both extensively ( see Matter of Abell v JetBlue Airways Corp. , 134 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2015]).

2024"To modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrator[ ] knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrator[ ] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" ( Schiferle , 155 AD3d at 127 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wien & Malkin LLP , 6 NY3d at 481 ; Barone v Haskins , 193 AD3d 1388, 1391 [4th Dept 2021], appeal dismissed 37 NY3d 1032 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 919 [2022]).

2019Application of the "manifest disregard of law" standard requires the court to make, in essence, three inquiries: (1) whether the legal principle allegedly ignored by the arbitrator was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable; (2) whether the arbitrators knew of the governing legal principle; and, (3) whether knowing that principle, the arbitrators refused to apply it or ignored it ( id.; see also Bear, Stearns & Co. v Ontario , Inc., 409 F3d 87 [2d Cir 2005]; Wallace v Buttar , 378 F3d 182 [2d Cir 2004]).

2017Thus, an arbitral award must be enforced if there is even a “barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” (T.Co Metals, 592 F3d at 339 [emphasis omitted]).