Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 298 views

    WaldmanBausk Cas

    Uploaded by

    KennethRyesky
    Waldman v. Bausk, N.Y.L.J., 7 February 1994, p. 34, col. 2 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co.) [Court vacates arbitration award of a Beit Din rabbinical court.].

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    WaldmanBausk Cas

    Uploaded by

    KennethRyesky
    298 views3 pages
    Waldman v. Bausk, N.Y.L.J., 7 February 1994, p. 34, col. 2 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co.) [Court vacates arbitration award of a Beit Din rabbinical court.].

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Waldman v. Bausk, N.Y.L.J., 7 February 1994, p. 34, col. 2 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co.) [Court vacates arbitration award of a Beit Din rabbinical court.].

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    298 views3 pages

    WaldmanBausk Cas

    Uploaded by

    KennethRyesky
    Waldman v. Bausk, N.Y.L.J., 7 February 1994, p. 34, col. 2 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co.) [Court vacates arbitration award of a Beit Din rabbinical court.].

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK

    TRIAL/SPECIAL TERM PART-ROCKLAND COUNTY


    Present:
    Hon. GEORGE M. BERGERMAN
    Justice.

    SUPREME COURT: ROCKLAND COUNTY


    ----- •• -.----- •••••••• ----- ••• -.- ••••• - •••• -X
    To commence the statutory time
    ZALMAN LEIB WALDMAN, period for appeals as of right
    (CPLR 5513[a]), you are
    advised to serve a copy or this
    order, with notice of entry, upon
    Petitioner, an parties.

    For an Order Pursuant to Article


    75 of the CPLR confirming an
    Arbitration Award
    -against- INDEX
    NUMBER 5588/93
    MOTION
    DATE 9/17/93
    GITTEL BAUSK, MOTION
    CAL.NUMBER 26
    Respondent.

    -------------------------,------------------X
    THE FOLLOWING PAPERS NUMBERED 1 TO READ ON}'HIS application by, the petitioner for an order conrirming the
    arbitration awa:rd. . . ' .

    PAPERS 'NUMBERED

    NOTICE OF MOTION/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-'AFFIDAVITS


    petitioner 1
    ANSWERING AFFIDAVffS respondent 2
    REPLYING AFFIDAVITS petitioner 3,4
    AFFIDAVITS
    FILED PAPERS

    Upon the foregoing papers it is ORDERED that this application to confirm


    the arbitration award is denied and the award is hereby vacated. The court
    finds that the arbitrator herein exceeded his power and so imperfectly
    executed his power that a final and definite award upon the subject matter
    submitted was not made. CPLR §7511 subd.(b)(1)(iii).
    On a reading of the arbitration agreement it is apparent that both
    Waldman and Bausk were submitting a corporate dispute regarding Surrey
    Management Corp. for arbitration, not a personal dispute between Waldman and
    Bausk as individuals. The arbitration agreement is signed by both parties in
    their corporate representative capacities. The July 22, 1993 arbitration
    award improperly renders a decision regarding an individual dispute between
    Waldman and Bausk.
    The July 29, 1993 award also purports to make directives with respect to
    the disposition of parcels of reiil· property', the owners of which were not
    before the arbitrator. The four separate partnerships , '\'hich .o}"n. these
    properties were not parties to the arbitration agreement.· ·No'' dis'pos'i t'ion of
    these properties could therefore be made by the arbitrator absent the
    participation of the non-party owners before the. arbitrato,r,, Levovitz. v ..
    Yeshi~~ Be~h, 120 A.D.2d 289, 296. .
    In addition, the arbitrator also rendered a decision with respect to
    monies claimed by Surrey Management Corp. which were the subject of a claim
    by a debtor estate (Ararat Associates) in bankruptcy. Any disposition of
    such claim by the arbitrator would have required the United States Trustee as
    a necessary party at the arbitration.
    The arbitrator's award, accordingly, deprived other partnerships and
    individuals who owned the real property which was the subject of the
    arbitration awa.rd of due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard.
    The award must, therefore, be vacated.
    The court also notes that there are other significant issues raised by
    the respondent in opposing this application which would require the conduct
    of a hearing. [CPLR §7511 subd.(b)(1)(i), (ii) and (iv)]. As a result of
    its prior finding, the court need not reach these issues.

    Dated January 18, 1994 Entered

    TO: ANDERSON KILL OLICK & OSHINSKY, P.C.


    Attorneys for Petitioner
    666 Third Avenue
    New York, N.Y. 10017
    KENNETH H. RYESKY, ESQ.
    Attorney for Respondent
    104 Tinton Place, POB 200
    East Northport, N.Y. 11731
    0
    0
    u
    "'C ROCKLAND
    ~
    § i;
    '
    I··
    COUNTY
    0
    0
    '.
    -'"••t+••u•--
    ~ "
    ..... L. SUPREME COURT
    u I
    Q Juedce Bergman
    Ei « WALDMAN v. BAUSK-Upon the fore-
    ~ ' · · going papers it is Ordered that this appli·
    §' cation to confirm the arbitration award is
    denied and the award is hereby vacated.
    r/.l 'The court finds that the arbitrator herein
    '-'
    ('.1 _exceeded his power .and so imperfectly ex-
    ·.-. , ··ecuted his power that a final and definite
    .....;

    r--·~--~--
    0 ·was not made. CPLR§7513
    0
    '•subd:(b)(1 )(iii).
    -.:!' •f •on a reading of the arbitration agree-
    (")
    :':ment it is apparent tbat both Waldman and
    ci.. ; .':'Ba:l!sk were·submitting a corporate dispute
    ·regarding Surrey Management Corp. for ar·
    .,f' bitration, not a personal dispute between

    -0'1
    0'1

    r-:
    Waldman and Bausk as individuals. The ar.
    bitration agreement is signed by both par·
    i ties in their corporate representative ca-
    I ..pacfties. The July 22, 1993 arbitration
    award .improperly renders a decision re- •
    ~ r
    garding an individual dispute between
    Waldman and Bausk.
    The July 29, 1993 award also purports to
    ..0 make directives with respect to the dispo-
    Q
    r.... sition of parcels of Teal property, the own-

    -·§"' I ers of which were not before the arbitrator.


    The four separate partnerships which -own
    these properties were not parties-to the ar-
    bitration agreement. No disposition of
    0 these properties could therefore be made
    ...... by the arbitrator absent the participation
    Of the non-partY owners before the arbitra-
    ~ tor. Levovitz v. Yeshiva Beth,l20 A.D.2d
    289,296 .
    ....:! In addition, the arbitrator also rendered
    -t:0 a decision .with respect to monies claimed
    by Surrey Management Corp. which were
    the subject of a claim by a debtor estate
    >-< i {Ararat Associates) in bankruptcy. Any
    ~ disposition of such claim by the arbitrator
    0
    z I would have required the United States
    Trustee as a necessary party at the
    arbitration.
    ~· The-arbitrator's award, accordingly, de-
    prived other partnerships and individuals
    :::5 who owned the real property which was
    ~ ' the subject of the arbitration award of due
    process·, notice and an opportunity to be
    ;;.: heard.
    The award must, therefore, be vacated.
    :<; The court also notes that there are other

    ~
    significant issues raised by the respondent
    in-opposing this application which would
    require the conduct of a hearing. [CPLR
    §7511 subd.(b)(l)(i), (ii) and (iv)). As a

    ~
    1
    l;;"""'l!ltof Its prio~ finding; the court need ,,
    not.·reach these lSSues. ·
    I
    ,_, I
    L
    ~.,..

    You might also like