Opinion
March 13, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Our review of the record reveals that the arbitrator chosen by the parties disclosed all facts upon which the claim of bias is premised, that the petitioner nevertheless entered into a new contract by which the arbitrator was reappointed, and that the petitioner proceeded to arbitration with such knowledge. The court therefore properly denied that branch of the petitioner's application which was to disqualify the arbitrator on the ground of bias (see, Matter of Stevens Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 N.Y.2d 123, 129-130; Matter of Astoria Med. Group [Health Ins. Plan], 11 N.Y.2d 128, 136; De Camp v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 A.D.2d 766, 768). Moreover, under the circumstances, the issues of economic duress and breach of contract were properly left for resolution by the arbitrator (see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 N.Y.2d 190, 198; Oberlander v. Find Care, 108 A.D.2d 798, 799; I.J.S. Fabrics v. Dan Riv., Inc., 81 A.D.2d 525, 526), as were any remaining questions concerning the legal meaning and the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants (see, Maross Constr. v. Central N Y Regional Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 341, 347; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 632; Matter of Tringali, 91 A.D.2d 887, 888). Eiber, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.