TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Giresi

In the Matter of Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. Salvatore Giresi, Doing Business as Bonanza Drywall Co.

Local 964, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Giresi, 29 A.D.2d 768 (1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 13, 1968
Citations
29 A.D.2d 768287 N.Y.S.2d 8541968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 470167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2880

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland 'County, dated February 17, 1967, which confirmed an arbitration award, affirmed, with costs. Under all the circumstances herein, where it appeared that appellant had obtained several adjournments and had delayed the completion of the proceedings some 16 months, we find no abuse of discretion in the arbitrator’s refusal to grant one more adjournment {Matter of Kool Air Systems [Syosset Institutional Bldrs.], 22 A D 2d *769 672). Failure to adjourn the arbitration proceeding is not “ misconduct ” within CPLR 7511 where the party who claims that it is (here the appellant) is under indictment with respect to the same subject matter as is involved in the proceeding (Lcmgemyr v. Campbell, 27 A D 2d 942; see, United States v. Simon, 373 F. 2d 649 , cert, granted 386 U. S. 1030 ; United States v. American Radiator <& Std. Sanitary Gorp., 388 F. 2d 201 , cert. den. 390 U. S. 922 ). Had appellant seen fit to appear at the arbitration hearing he could have asserted his privilege against self incrimination (Matter of Local Union No. 964 [Langemyr], 25 A D 2d 534; Matter of Hirshfield v. Hanley, 228 1ST. Y. 346; Matter of Groban, 352 U. S. 330 ; 1 N. Y. Jur., Administrative Law, § 98, pp. 439 — 441). In our opinion, appellant’s other contention, that the award should be vacated on the ground that prior to confirmation it was delivered by ordinary mail (cf. CPLR 7507), does not present a justiciable basis for vacatur where, as here, actual delivery occurred. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 11986: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chaco Energy Co. v. Thercol Energy Co.637 P.2d 558 (N.M. 1981)
  2. Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk121 A.D.2d 549 (1986)

Most recent

  1. Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk121 A.D.2d 549 (1986)
  2. Chaco Energy Co. v. Thercol Energy Co.637 P.2d 558 (N.M. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 (1957) 213
United States v. Simon, 373 F.2d 649 (2d Cir. 1967) 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list