Stancioff v. Hertz

Decision Date22 July 1980
Citation10 Mass.App.Ct. 843,406 N.E.2d 1318
PartiesPeter STANCIOFF v. Ralph E. L. HERTZ.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Christopher L. Noble, Boston, for plaintiff.

Nancy F. Madden and Edward A. White, New York City, submitted a brief, for defendant,

Before HALE, C. J., and KASS and NOLAN, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

About six months after an arbitrator had made an award, the plaintiff applied to the Superior Court for confirmation. A judgment was entered confirming the award and ordering the defendant to pay damages in the amount determined by it. The defendant made no application to vacate or modify the award. See G.L. c. 251, §§ 12 and 13, as amended by St. 1972, c. 200, §§ 1 and 2. The defendant has appealed from that judgment and argues two issues.

1. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the locale of the arbitration was to be Boston or New York. Rule 11 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) provides: "If a party objects to the locale requested by the other party, the AAA shall have power to determine the locale and its decision shall be final and binding." The defendant was thus bound by the AAA's choice of Boston. That in turn conferred on the Superior Court jurisdiction to enter judgment on the award. G.L. c. 251, § 16, as added by St. 1960, c. 374, § 1.

2. The defendant contends that the award is unenforceable as it was made beyond the time set by the rules and agreed to by the parties. In making this contention the defendant relies principally on the language contained in the first sentence of G.L. c. 251, § 8(b). The original time for making the award was extended as the result of a series of requests by one party or the other. It appears from the record appendix that the defendant was represented in those proceedings by two attorneys. The final request was made by the defendant on March 17, 1978, when one of his attorneys submitted a reply to an earlier (March 13) submission of the plaintiff and requested that the hearing be reopened to receive it. This request is indicated in a letter of March 20 sent by the attorney to the AAA. Then on the next day (March 21), the defendant's other attorney sent the arbitrator a letter in which he objected to "papers being submitted to the arbitrator after the closing of the hearings." He pointed out that the proper procedure would be for the arbitrator to reopen the proceedings. On March...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Baxter Health Care, Corp. v. Harvard Apparatus, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • August 23, 1993
    ...to enter judgment upon the award, with venue in Suffolk County. See G.L. c. 251, §§ 16, 17. See also Stancioff v. Hertz, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 843, 406 N.E.2d 1318 (1980). The record appendix does not include Bard's entire submission to the AAA, but it does include an "Attachment to Demand for Ar......
  • Bernard v. Hemisphere Hotel Management, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • June 24, 1983
    ...380 Mass. 18, 28, 402 N.E.2d 1017 (1980). The arbitrators' power includes interpretation of arbitration rules, Stancioff v. Hertz, 10 Mass.App. 843, 844, 406 N.E.2d 1318 (1980), and "[e]ven a grossly erroneous decision is binding ..." Trustees of the Boston & Maine Corp. v. Massachusetts Ba......
  • Chicago Southshore and South Bend R.R. v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1998
    ...54 Ill.Dec. 229, 424 N.E.2d 979 (1981), United Artists' Corp. v. Gottesman, 135 Misc. 92, 236 N.Y.S. 623 (1929), Stancioff v. Hertz, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 843, 406 N.E.2d 1318 (1980), and Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951 (Ky.App.1991). Southshore's reliance on these cases is clearly mis......
  • Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago Southshore and South Bend R.R.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 20, 1996
    ...v. General Elec. Co. (1948), N.Y.Sup., 193 Misc. 146, 83 N.Y.S.2d 768, aff'd. Mem., 275 A.D. 908, 90 N.Y.S.2d 273; Stancioff v. Hertz (1980), 10 Mass.App. 843, 406 N.E.2d 1318; Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. v. Peerless Ins. Co. (1981), 383 Mass. 162, 418 N.E.2d 580. However, the cases cited......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT