Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Jack J. Grynberg, et al v. Bp Exploration Operating Company Limited

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 16, 2013

IN RE JACK J. GRYNBERG, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, --
v.
BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Matter of Grynberg v BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd.

Decided on May 16, 2013

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 14, 2012, denying petitioners' motion to disqualify the arbitrator from any further participation in two arbitrations on the grounds of partiality and bias, and to stay the arbitrations pending his replacement, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 3, 2012, which denied petitioners' motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners waived any claim for disqualification of the arbitrator on the ground of bias by failing to identify in their prior notice of appeal Supreme Court's effective denial of the part of their cross motion that sought to discharge the arbitrator (92 AD3d 547 [2012]; see Torres v City of New York, 41 AD3d 312 [1st Dept 2007]). Petitioners contend that they did not waive the claim for disqualification because, although they indicated in their cross motion that they sought the discharge of the arbitrator, they advanced no arguments in support thereof, and the court did not expressly address the issue. To the contrary, by failing to make any arguments as to the arbitrator's alleged partiality during the confirmation proceeding, petitioners waived that challenge.

In view of the foregoing, we need not address petitioners' contention that the arbitrator exhibited either actual bias or the appearance of bias. In any event, we have considered this contention and find it without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 16, 2013

CLERK

20130516

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.