Summary
declining to vacate arbitration award based on new evidence, as such basis was not statutorily recognized grounds for vacatur
Summary of this case from Davidson v. HensenOpinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
It is well settled that a party seeking to vacate an arbitrator's award must meet a heavy burden, "'for once the issue is properly before the arbitrator, questions of law and fact are merged in the award and are not within the power of the judiciary to resolve'" (North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v. North Syracuse Educ. Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 195, 200, quoting from Matter of Binghamton Civ. Serv. Forum v. City of Binghamton, 44 N.Y.2d 23, 28). Thus, where, as in the case at bar, a party who has participated in arbitration seeks to vacate the award, vacatur may only be granted upon the grounds that "the rights of that party were prejudiced by corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award, partiality of an arbitrator, that the arbitrator exceeded his power or failed to make a final and definite award, or a procedural failure that was not waived" (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307; CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). An arbitrator's award "will not be vacated even though the court concludes that his interpretation of the 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], supra, at 308; see also, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907, 909; Matter of Hecht v. Gertler, 196 A.D.2d 541).
The arbitrator's award was neither totally irrational, violative of strong public policy, or in excess of his powers under the broad arbitration clause contained in the parties' partnership agreement. Moreover, the award rendered was sufficiently final and definite to resolve the controversy submitted to arbitration, and to be enforceable (see, Matter of Meisels v. Uhr, 79 N.Y.2d 526; Matter of Carty [Nationwide Ins. Co.], 149 A.D.2d 328; Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 A.D.2d 40, 44). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's cross motion to vacate the award.
Finally, we note that the discovery of new evidence is not among the grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award under CPLR 7511 (b) (see, Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 950, 951; see also, Matter of Hirsch Constr. Corp. [Cooper], 181 A.D.2d 52, 55; Karlan Constr. Co. v. Burdick Assocs. Owners Corp., 166 A.D.2d 416). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.