Opinion
June 22, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 21, 1999, confirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Eric Turkewitz, for petitioner-respondent.
Irwin M. Berg, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Lerner, Andrias, Friedman, JJ.
The award of partnership income was properly confirmed, even if, as respondent argues, such claims would have been held barred if brought in court. An arbitrator's award "will not be vacated even though his interpretation of an agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power" (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308; see also, Graniteville Co. v. First Natl. Trading Co., 179 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759).). While the prior decision of this Court in Matter of Fuchsberg (Turkewitz) ( 256 A.D.2d 123) held that the Statute of Limitations barred petitioner's claims accruing more than six years prior to his commencement of the arbitration, the same decision left it up to the arbitrator to decide when petitioner's claims accrued. The arbitrator's finding that petitioner's claims accrued when he withdrew from respondent, some two years prior to the commencement of the arbitration, was not "totally irrational".
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.