From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudolph's Women's Apparel v. Chiappinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).


Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The instant controversy arose from a construction contract pursuant to which the defendant AJC Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter AJC) agreed to renovate a clothing store operated by the plaintiff. A dispute arose, and the parties submitted the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the contract. The arbitrator awarded damages to the plaintiff on August 28, 1987, and the award was judicially confirmed on September 22, 1987. No appeal was taken. In December 1987 the plaintiff initiated this action against the appellant (the owner of AJC), the appellant's wife, and AJC. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are collaterally estopped by the arbitration award from contesting the issue of liability.

It is beyond dispute that collateral estoppel applies to arbitration awards (see, Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 N.Y.2d 715; Burdick Assocs. Owners Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 166 A.D.2d 402). However, the appellant now contends that the arbitrator exceeded his power by awarding damages for willful exaggeration of a lien under Lien Law §§ 39 and 39-a.

We have repeatedly observed that a determination by an arbitrator will only be set aside if it is "`"completely irrational" * * * "or where the document expressly limits or is construed to limit the powers of the arbitrators, hence, narrowing the scope of the arbitration"'" (Matter of Ploen v. Monticello Cent. School Dist., 160 A.D.2d 879, 880, quoting from Rochester City School Dist. v. Rochester Teacher's Assn., 41 N.Y.2d 578, 582, quoting from Lentine v. Fundaro, 29 N.Y.2d 382, 385). This principle applies even though a court concludes that the arbitrator's interpretation misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Town of Callicoon Unit], 70 N.Y.2d 907, 909; Matter of Albany County Sheriff's Local 775 [County of Albany], 63 N.Y.2d 654). Because the appellant requested the arbitrator to rule upon the issue now claimed to have been beyond his remedial power, and the award has a rational basis, it cannot be said that the arbitrator exceeded his power in issuing the award (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v. Dover-Wingdale Teacher's Assn., 61 N.Y.2d 913).

We find the appellant's assertion that the award was violative of public policy to be without merit.

We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rudolph's Women's Apparel v. Chiappinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Rudolph's Women's Apparel v. Chiappinelli

Case Details

Full title:RUDOLPH'S WOMEN'S APPAREL OF MT. KISCO, INC., Respondent, v. ANTHONY J…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 606

Citing Cases

Khandhar v. Elfenbein

"It is settled law that the doctrine of [issue preclusion] is applicable to issues resolved by [an] earlier…

In Matter of Falzone v. N.Y. Ctrl. Mut. Fire Ins.

( Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v Benjamin, 1 AD3d 39; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24; Xiao Yang…