Glatzer v. Glatzer
| Decision Date | 25 May 2010 |
| Citation | 73 A.D.3d 1173,905 N.Y.S.2d 607 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rose GLATZER, appellant, v. Jay GLATZER, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dollinger, Gonski & Grossman, Carle Place, N.Y. (Matthew Dollinger of counsel), for appellant.
Bathsheba Epstein-Hersko (Rosner Nocera & Ragone, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Gerald M. Jacobs], of counsel), for respondent Jay Glatzer.
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
In a consolidated proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 6, 2006, and action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Thomas, J.), dated May 8, 2008, as denied her petition and confirmed the award, and granted that branch of the respondent/defendant's cross motion which was for an award of costs and for the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to the extent of directing both the petitioner/plaintiff and her attorney to each pay a sanction in the sum of $1,000.
ORDERED that the appeal by the petitioner/plaintiff from so much of the order as granted that branch of the respondent/defendant's cross motion which was for an award of costs and for the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to the extent of directing her attorney to pay a sanction in the sum of $1,000, is dismissed, as the petitioner/plaintiff is not aggrieved by that portion of the order ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the respondent/defendant's cross motion which was for an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to the extent of directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay a sanction in the sum of $1,000, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs and disbursements.
The petitioner/plaintiff wife and the respondent/defendant husband, who were separated, agreed to arbitrate "all disputes between" them before a rabbinical court, or Beth Din, including, among other things, issues of equitable distribution, child support, maintenance, and "all related matters stemming out of [their] marriage." As relevant here, the Beth Din issued an award, dated October 6, 2006, and the wife commenced this proceeding to vacate it. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and granted that branch of the husband's cross motion which was for an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to the extent of directing the wife and her attorney to each pay a sanction in the sum of $1,000.
The wife contends that the Supreme Court should havevacated the arbitration award dated October 6, 2006, on the ground that one of the rabbis on the Beth Din was not a neutral arbitrator. However, the record indicates that the parties agreed to appoint the members of the Beth Din by " Zabla," in which each party selected one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators then selected a third neutral arbitrator as the presiding member of the panel ( see Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 160-161; Berg v. Berg, 20 Misc.3d 1142[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51823[U], 2008 WL 4155652 ). "The law recognizes the practical reality that, in a standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y., Inc. v. N.Y. State Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
...N.E.2d 512 [1988] ; see Matter of Piller v. Schwimmer , 135 A.D.3d 766, 768–769, 22 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2016] ; Matter of Glatzer v. Glatzer , 73 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 905 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2010], lv dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 948, 917 N.Y.S.2d 89, 942 N.E.2d 298 [2010] ; Matter of Arner v. Liberty Mut. Ins. C......
-
Miller v. Miller
...of the order ( seeCPLR 5511; Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle, 92 N.Y.2d 944, 681 N.Y.S.2d 472, 704 N.E.2d 226;Matter of Glatzer v. Glatzer, 73 A.D.3d 1173, 1174, 905 N.Y.S.2d 607;Impastato v. Impastato, 62 A.D.3d 752, 879 N.Y.S.2d 509;Mohler v. Nardone, 53 A.D.3d 600, 861 N.Y.S.2d 791); an......
-
A & L Vill. Mkt., Inc. v. 344 Vill., Inc.
...(see Matter of Atlantic Purch., Inc. v. Airport Props. II, LLC, 77 A.D.3d at 825, 909 N.Y.S.2d 528 ; Matter of Glatzer v. Glatzer, 73 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 905 N.Y.S.2d 607 ; Matter of Namdar [Mirzoeff], 161 A.D.2d 348, 349, 555 N.Y.S.2d 101 ; Palmieri v. Insurance Co. of N.A., 67 A.D.2d 967, ......
-
Berg v. Berg
...two appointed arbitrators then selected a third neutral arbitrator as the presiding member of the panel ( see Matter of Glatzer v. Glatzer, 73 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 905 N.Y.S.2d 607; Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 160–161). “The law recognizes the practical reality that, in a standard tripar......