Brill v. Muller Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1963 |
| Citation | 242 N.Y.S.2d 69,192 N.E.2d 34,13 N.Y.2d 776 |
| Parties | , 192 N.E.2d 34 In the Matter of the Arbitration between Norma BRILL, Appellant, and MULLER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Theodore F. Tonkonogy, New York City, for appellant.
Paul Goodman, New York City, for respondent.
Order affirmed without costs, in the following memorandum: The action of an arbitrator in receiving upon the arbitral hearing evidence which would not be admissible in the trial of an action in court does not constitute 'corruption, fraud or undue means' or 'misbehavior' within the sense and meaning of subdivisions 1 and 3 of section 1462 of the Civil Practice Act.
In this arbitration under a storage contract petitioner sought $30,000 for the conversion of furniture and other items of personal property which the respondent sold at public auction. The arbitrator awarded petitioner $483.04.
Special Term vacated the award on the ground that the receipt in evidence of a report by the Pinkerton Detective Agency which was disparaging of the petitioner's character resulted in procuring the award by 'undue means' within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 1462 of the Civil Practice Act and constituted 'misbehavior' by the arbitrator within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 1462 of the Civil Practice Act.
The Appellate Division held that while receipt of the report may have been unwise it did not constitute a ground for vacatur of the award, that the propriety of the admission of the report into evidence was not for the courts to review, and, in any event, there was no proof that the award resulted from consideration of the report.
The Pinkerton report contained a list of lawsuits in which appellant was presumably involved and a report by the private detective of what neighbors purportedly said about appellant, including matters which they said they had heard others say, or had heard from others that still others had heard about appellant. According to the present respondent's brief in the Appellate Division, its purpose in putting this Pinkerton report into evidence before the arbitrators was to portray appellant as possessing a highly litigious nature and to impair her credibility.
Such procedure, in our view, can hardly be countenanced even in arbitration. The report of a detective agency employed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caso v. Coffey
... ... Rabin, 29 A.D.2d 351, 287 N.Y.S.2d 975; Matter of Brill (Muller Bros.), 40 Misc.2d 683, 243 N.Y.S.2d 905, revd. on other grounds ... ...
-
Pierre v. General Acc. Ins.
...grounds for vacating the award (see, e.g., Matter of Brill [Muller Bros.], 17 A.D.2d 804, 232 N.Y.S.2d 806, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 776, 242 N.Y.S.2d 69, 192 N.E.2d 34, cert den 376 U.S. 927, 84 S.Ct. 693, 11 L.Ed.2d 623). Since our standard of review is to determine whether the award is supported ......
-
Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State of N.Y.
... ... the burden of justifying vacatur is upon the petitioner (Matter of Brill 13 N.Y.2d 776, 242 N.Y.S.2d 69, 192 N.E.2d 34). Petitioner has failed to ... ...
-
Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Inc. v. Kolb
...(306 N.Y.S.2d 934, 936, 255 N.E.2d 168, 170)), and the burden of justifying vacatur is upon the petitioner (Brill v. Muller Brothers, 13 N.Y.2d 776 (244 N.Y.S.2d 69, 192 N.E.2d 34)). A court may not even set aside an award because it feels that the arbitrator's interpretation disregarded th......