Matter of Reisman Peirez & Reisman, LLP, v Prakash

Annotate this Case
Matter of Reisman, Peirez & Reisman, LLP v Prakash 2009 NY Slip Op 05781 [64 AD3d 602] July 7, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 2, 2009

In the Matter of Reisman, Peirez & Reisman, LLP, Respondent,
v
Shoba Prakash, Appellant.

—[*1] Shoba Prakash, New Hyde Park, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Reisman, Peirez & Reisman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael J. Angelo of counsel), respondent pro se.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated September 1, 2005, which, upon, in effect, granting the petitioner's application to vacate a prior arbitration award dated August 3, 2005, awarded the petitioner the principal sum of $5,779.24, Shoba Prakash appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated February 5, 2008, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 9, 2007, granting the petition, is in favor of the petitioner and against her in the total sum of $7,062.23.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the arbitration award dated September 1, 2005 is vacated, the application is denied, and the arbitration award dated August 3, 2005 is reinstated and confirmed.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, under the circumstances of this case the arbitrator improperly, in effect, granted its application to vacate his prior award, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitrator's original award (see CPLR 7511). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to confirm the arbitration award dated September 1, 2005 (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Dental Health Care, P.C., 24 AD3d 437 [2005]).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.