Clear and convincing evidence supports the court's finding of bias on the part of the hearing officer against petitioner warranting vacatur of the award rendered in respondent Canick's favor (see CPLR 7511[b][1][ii]; see Matter of Piller v Eisner, 173 A.D.3d 1035, 1036-1037 [2d Dept 2019]). Among other things, the hearing officer made findings against petitioner that were either entirely unsupported or directly refuted by the record, repeatedly interrupted petitioner...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.