Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to a contract made in the spring of 1995, the petitioner Salco Construction Company, Inc. (hereinafter Salco), a subcontractor, and the appellant Lasberg Construction Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Lasberg), a general contractor, entered into a written agreement whereby Salco was to do masonry construction work to rebuild a fire-damaged structure in Dobbs Ferry, New York. They agreed to submit to arbitration any controversy arising out of the agreement.
In October 1995, Salco walked off the job, claiming contract violations. Lasberg moved to compel arbitration under the contract provisions. Salco counterclaimed, arbitration ensued, and the arbitrator awarded Salco the relief it demanded in its counterclaim. Salco commenced this proceeding to confirm the award. The Supreme Court granted the petition. Lasberg contends, inter alia, that the award rendered by the arbitrator is totally irrational and should be vacated. We disagree.
An arbitration award should not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power ( see, Hackett v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy, 86 N.Y.2d 146; Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907; Maross Constr. v. Central N Y Regional Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 341, 346; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308). An arbitrator is not bound to abide by the principles of substantive law or rules of procedure which govern the traditional litigation process ( see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623). Arbitrators do not even have to make findings, specify the formula used in calculating the award, or indicate the bases for the award ( see, Matter of Reddick Sons v. Carthage Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 91 A.D.2d 1182). Moreover, arbitrators do not have to justify their awards. It must merely be evident upon a reading of the record that there exists a rational basis for the award ( see, Caso v. Coffey, 41 N.Y.2d 153). On the record before us, we find no basis to vacate the award.
Lasberg's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.