Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re the Arbitration between McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P. C. & Killeen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 30, 1999Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrew Iii, J.

While I agree with the majority that our prior discussion concerning the reasonableness of petitioner’s fee did not constitute the “law of the case” inasmuch as we remitted the matter for a hearing de novo, because I perceive the arbitration panel’s determination to have been arbitrary and capricious, irrational and without a plausible basis, I would affirm Supreme Court’s order insofar as it vacated the arbitration award and remit the matter to the panel for a further decision enunciating the reasons for its findings. It is axiomatic that to uphold an award reached after compulsory…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Accounting of Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. City of Yonkers v. WillseaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API