IN RE JOAN HANSEN & COMPANY, INC., pet-res, v. EVERLAST WORLD'S BOXING HEADQUARTERS CORP. Respondents-ap

8757. IN RE JOAN HANSEN & COMPANY, INC., pet-res, v. EVERLAST WORLD'S BOXING HEADQUARTERS CORP. Respondents-ap — Schlacter & Associates, New York (Jed R. Schlacter of counsel), for ap — Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (George Berger of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered October 6, 2011, confirming an arbitral award, unanimously affirmed, with costs., respondents Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp. and Everlast Worldwide, Inc. (Everlast) did not default by failing to timely answer the petition or by moving to vacate the arbitral award instead of filing a cross petition to dismiss (see CPLR 404; 7502[a][iii]). Indeed, Everlast's motion to vacate did not prejudice any substantial right belonging to petitioner (see CPLR 2001).

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8757. IN RE JOAN HANSEN & COMPANY, INC., pet-res, v. EVERLAST WORLD’S BOXING HEADQUARTERS CORP. Respondents-ap — Schlacter & Associates, New York (Jed R. Schlacter of counsel), for ap — Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (George Berger of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered October 6, 2011, confirming an arbitral award, unanimously affirmed, with costs., respondents Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp. and Everlast Worldwide, Inc. (Everlast) did not default by failing to timely answer the petition or by moving to vacate the arbitral award instead of filing a cross petition to dismiss (see CPLR 404; 7502[a][iii]). Indeed, Everlast’s motion to vacate did not prejudice any substantial right belonging to petitioner (see CPLR 2001).

The arbitrators committed no misconduct (see CPLR 7511[b][1] [i]) when they did not require petitioner to disclose its representation agreements with its other licensors. Everlast failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that those agreements were necessary to prove their defense (Financial Clearing & Servs. Corp. v. Katz, 172 AD2d 290 [1st Dept 1991]).

IN RE JOAN HANSEN & COMPANY, INC., pet-res, v. EVERLAST WORLD'S BOXING HEADQUARTERS CORP. Respondents-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal