MADISON REALTY CAPITAL, L.P., ET AL., plf-res, v. SCARBOROUGH-ST. JAMES CORPORATION, ET AL., def-ap, THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., Nonparty ap

54. MADISON REALTY CAPITAL, L.P., ET AL., plf-res, v. SCARBOROUGH-ST. JAMES CORPORATION, ET AL., def-ap, THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., Nonparty ap — LeClairRyan, P.C., New York (Michael T. Conway of counsel), for Scarborough-St. James Corporation and 67500 South Main Street Richmond LLC, ap — THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., APPELLANT PRO SE. Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale (Jeffrey A. Miller of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered March 16, 2015, which confirmed an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants for the total sum of $720,204.80, and bringing up for review an order, same court, entered August 5, 2014, as amended by order, entered December 1, 2014, which granted plaintiffs' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied defendants' cross motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

54. MADISON REALTY CAPITAL, L.P., ET AL., plf-res, v. SCARBOROUGH-ST. JAMES CORPORATION, ET AL., def-ap, THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., Nonparty ap — LeClairRyan, P.C., New York (Michael T. Conway of counsel), for Scarborough-St. James Corporation and 67500 South Main Street Richmond LLC, ap — THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., APPELLANT PRO SE. Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale (Jeffrey A. Miller of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered March 16, 2015, which confirmed an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants for the total sum of $720,204.80, and bringing up for review an order, same court, entered August 5, 2014, as amended by order, entered December 1, 2014, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied defendants’ cross motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one. Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999] [citations omitted]). Applying this standard, there is no basis to upset the final award.

MADISON REALTY CAPITAL, L.P., ET AL., plf-res, v. SCARBOROUGH-ST. JAMES CORPORATION, ET AL., def-ap, THOMAS L. ARMANO, JR., Nonparty ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal