Opinion
2024
October 28, 2003.
Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 16, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm arbitration awards dated March 9, 2000 and April 26, 2000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Marc Lebowitz John Rosenberg, for petitioners-respondents.
James P. Cinque, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
The court correctly determined that petitioner properly served the petition on respondent and, in any event, respondent voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief in his cross petition to dismiss and vacate the arbitration award (see Matter of Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Montilus, 234 A.D.2d 543). Also proper was the court's determination that the petition to confirm both awards was timely, having been made within one year of the filing of the "final" award (cf. Matter of Forhill Gardens [Bevona], 225 A.D.2d 331). Nor are any of the other grounds upon which vacatur of the awards might be premised (see CPLR 7511) satisfied. Where as here, the parties have agreed to submit their disputes to binding arbitration and the awards reached in consequence of such arbitration are not irrational or violative of a strong public policy, the awards should be given effect (Hackett v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy, 86 N.Y.2d 146, 154-157).
Petitioners request attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the appeal, to which they claim entitlement to under ¶ 10 of the shareholders' agreement. However, this is a matter for arbitral, not judicial, determination.
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.