United States / 23 August 2007 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit / Mayer Zeiler v. Joseph Deitsch / 06-1893-cv, 06-5617-cv
Country | United States |
Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
Date | 23 August 2007 |
Parties | Mayer Zeiler v. Joseph Deitsch |
Case number | 06-1893-cv, 06-5617-cv |
Applicable NYC Provisions | I | V | I(1) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) |
Source | online: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/ (official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) |
Languages | English |
Summary | The Plaintiff-Appellee, Mayer Zeiler (“Zeiler”), a resident of Israel, and some the Defendants, those that are individuals and members of the Deitsch family (collectively referred to as “Deitsch”, residents of the United States, jointly owned various assets in both countries. A dispute arose concerning the division of assets between Zeiler and Deitsch. The parties submitted their dispute to arbitration before a Jewish religious tribunal seated in New York and consisting of three rabbis. The tribunal rendered a number of decisions over a period of three years, including eight orders in favor of Zeiler. One of the arbitrators subsequently resigned from the tribunal. By an award dated 7 March 2004, the two remaining arbitrators decided to retain jurisdiction over a dispute concerning compensation for taxes allegedly paid by Deitsch to the U.S. tax authorities. The two-member tribunal rendered a decision in favor of Deitsch. Zeiler sought annulment of the award and confirmation of the previous orders in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court vacated the award and confirmed the previous orders. Deitsch appealed. The United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit confirmed the arbitration award and the previous orders. In so holding, it found that under Article I(1) NYC and Section 202 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the commercial transaction under consideration in the arbitration had an international character, and therefore, the award was governed by the NYC. It further found that since the arbitration took place in New York, the recognition of the awards was governed both by the NYC and, pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, the FAA. The Court of Appeal held that while Article V(1)(d) NYC authorizes it to deny confirmation of arbitration awards rendered by a tribunal whose composition was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement, denying confirmation would be unwarranted in the present case because the composition of the tribunal was in accordance with the parties’ agreement. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |