From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Namdar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1990
161 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 10, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


The underlying facts of this case concern the sale of a sapphire sold by Moti Namdar and Shmuel Nissim to Eli Mirzoeff. The arbitrators subsequently determined that Mirzoeff owed Namdar the negotiated price of the sapphire. Namdar moved to confirm the award. Mirzoeff opposed the motion alleging that the arbitrators were prejudiced against him, the award was irrational and the arbitration proceeding was marred by procedural irregularities. The IAS court granted the petition to confirm the award and rejected Mirzoeff's contentions.

Courts have fostered a clear judicial policy in favor of noninterference in arbitration proceedings. (Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623.) In a consensual arbitration such as this one, arbitrators are not bound either by principles of substantive law or the rules of evidence. (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308.) Rather, the burden of proof is on the party alleging the misconduct and such misconduct must be proven "clear[ly] and convincing[ly]". (Matter of Wiener Furniture Co. [Kingston City Schools Consol.], 90 A.D.2d 875.) Upon our review of this record, we conclude that Mirzoeff has not sufficiently demonstrated his allegations of the arbitrators' misconduct.

A party who proceeds with an arbitration with actual knowledge of bias on the part of an arbitrator or facts that should have prompted further inquiry, waives his objection to the arbitration. (Matter of Stevens Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 N.Y.2d 123, 129.) In this case, the alleged prejudice of the arbitrators was known to Mirzoeff before completion of the arbitration proceeding. Mirzoeff, however, did not raise the alleged bias until well after the arbitration award was rendered. Accordingly, the claims relating to the arbitrators' alleged prejudice have been waived. (See, Matter of Siegel [Lewis], 40 N.Y.2d 687, 690.)

We have considered Mirzoeff's other claims and find them to be meritless.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Namdar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1990
161 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Namdar

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Arbitration between MOTI NAMDAR, Respondent, and ELI…

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

Date published: May 10, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 101

Citing Cases

Matter of Kubarych v. Siegel

It specifically provides that an alleged aggrieved party must immediately object to an arbitrator's…

TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AMERICA v. SWEN

Consistent with public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating an…