Legal Opinion
Grynberg v. BP Exploration Operating Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 21, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The arbitrator’s failure to determine the nature of the disputed payment warrants the vacatur of award four. Petitioners claim that this payment constituted a bribe. Respondents assert it was a bona fide cost of doing business. We remand for the arbitrator to determine the nature of the payment. Contrary to the arbitrator’s finding, deducting a payment intended to be a bribe to a public official is unenforceable as violative of public policy (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]; Matter of Crosstown Operating…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- MKC Development Corp. v. WeissAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- In re Arbitration between Crosstown Operating Corp. & 8910 5th Ave. Rest., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jack Grynberg v. BP, P.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- Grynberg v. BP P.L.C.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2012
- Matter of Grynberg v. BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Grynberg v. BP Exploration Operating Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Grynberg v. BP Exploration Operating Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013