Protocom Devices, Inc. v. Figueroa
| Decision Date | 07 May 1991 |
| Parties | PROTOCOM DEVICES, INC., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Antonio FIGUEROA d/b/a Design Expressions, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, ELLERIN and SMITH, JJ.
Order and Judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on December 5, 1989, which granted petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR Section 7503 to permanently stay the arbitration, 144 Misc.2d 738, 545 N.Y.S.2d 527, and the Order of the same Court and same Justice, entered on February 21, 1990, which granted respondent's motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to the court's prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record reveals that although, on January 22, 1988, an arbitration award was rendered in favor of the respondent in the amount of $16,646.75 for professional interior decorating services rendered to the petitioner pursuant to a contractual agreement between the parties, respondent admittedly did not confirm that arbitration award within one year as required by CPLR Section 7510. Nevertheless, on June 6, 1989, respondent sought to commence a second arbitration based on the same claim.
The IAS court properly determined that the prior arbitration award in favor of the respondent, which was not confirmed within one year pursuant to CPLR Section 7510, nevertheless warranted a stay of the subsequent arbitration proceeding initiated by the respondent, premised upon the same claim.
Contrary to respondent's assertions, an arbitration award "rendered in compliance with all legal requirements is a complete, final and binding determination of a controversy which may not be disturbed, unless the statutory grounds for doing so exist [citations omitted]." (Matter of Springs Cotton Mills [v. Buster Boy Suit Co.], 275 App.Div. 196, 199, 88 N.Y.S.2d 295, affd., 300 N.Y. 586, 89 N.E.2d 877; see, Hilowitz v. Hilowitz, 85 A.D.2d 621, 444 N.Y.S.2d 948, see generally, Rembrandt Ind. v. Hodges Intn'l., 38 N.Y.2d 502, 381 N.Y.S.2d 451, 344 N.E.2d 383).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterfront Marine Const., Inc. v. North End 49ers Sandbridge Bulkhead Groups A, B and C
...(La.Ct.App.1991); Protocom Devices, Inc. v. Figueroa, 144 Misc.2d 738, 545 N.Y.S.2d 527, 528 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1989), aff'd, 173 A.D.2d 177, 569 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y.App.Div.1991). But see Gruntal & Co. v. Steinberg, 854 F.Supp. 324, 337-38 (D.N.J.) (unconfirmed arbitration award under Maryland statu......
-
White v. State, 87018
...Appeals then affirmed but on different grounds. (74 N.Y.2d 879, 547 N.Y.S.2d 841, 547 N.E.2d 96.) Moreover, in Protocom Devices v. Figueroa, 173 A.D.2d 177, 178, 569 N.Y.S.2d 80, a unanimous panel of the First Department thereafter held that an unconfirmed arbitration award was "final and b......
-
Jacobson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...Department has (since issuing that opinion) also adopted the reasoning and holding of Hilowitz. In Protocom Devices, Inc. v. Figueroa, 173 A.D.2d 177, 569 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (1st Dep't 1991), the First Department cited Hilowitz (among other cases) in ruling that a "prior arbitration award in f......
-
Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Nuclear Elec. Ins. Ltd.
...arbitration awards can have collateral estoppel effect in subsequent arbitrations. See, e.g., Protocom Devices, Inc. v. Figueroa, 173 A.D.2d 177, 569 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1991); County of Rockland v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 129 A.D.2d 606, 514 N.Y.S.2d 102, 103 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.), ......