Legal Opinion
CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Hekal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 18, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court lacked authority to entertain the petition to review an intermediary ruling of the arbitrators on a procedural matter (see Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil [Indonesia], 43 NY2d 276 [1977]; Avon Prods. v Solow, 150 AD2d 236, 239-240 [1989]). Such intervention is not authorized by the CPLR, and is proscribed as a matter of policy. The relief “would disjoint and unduly delay the proceedings, thereby thwarting the very purpose of’ arbitration (Mobil Oil Indonesia, 43 NY2d at 282).
With respect to the cross motion, the court erroneously determined that the arbitrators lacked authority to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- De Sapio v. KohlmeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc. v. Asamera Oil (Indonesia) Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Avon Products, Inc. v. SolowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- In re Arbitration between Sobel & Charles Schwab & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- In re the Arbitration between Faberge, Inc. & Felsway Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
3Cited by4 opinions
- Board of Education v. HoganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Board of Education v. HoganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Harris v. Board of EducationNew York Supreme Court · 2014
- Matter of Lorica Asset Mgt. LLC v. SteeleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026