"One form of misconduct is the refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence" ( Matter ofProfessional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N.Y. v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d at 323, 383 N.Y.S.2d 592, 347 N.E.2d 918 [citations omitted]; seeMatter of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Health [New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.], 46 A.D.3d 1269, 1270–1271, 848 N.Y.S.2d 444 [2007], lv dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 826, 858 N.Y.S.2d 652, 888 N.E.2d 394 [2008] ). Even where an arbitrator rejects such evidence, the party seeking vacatur must "show by clear and convincing evidence that it had been deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing" ( Matter ofStolthaven Perth Amboy, Inc. v. JLM Mktg., Inc., 47 A.D.3d 414, 415, 849 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2008] ; seeKaminsky v. Segura, 26 A.D.3d 188, 189, 810 N.Y.S.2d 25 [2006] ). At the arbitration hearing, petitioners submitted an April 2018 email from John Petroccione, who designed the pools, opining that the pools were not properly constructed, which led to damage.
mpls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO], 193 A.D.3d 1305, 1307 [2021] [citation omitted]), which includes "prejudicial misconduct by the arbitrator" (Matter of Professional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N.Y. v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d 319, 323 [1976]; see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i]). "One form of misconduct is the refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence" (Matter of Professional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N.Y. v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d at 323 [citations omitted]; see Matter of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Health [New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.], 46 A.D.3d 1269, 1270-1271 [2007], lv dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 826 [2008]). Even where an arbitrator rejects such evidence, the party seeking vacatur must "show by clear and convincing evidence that it had been deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing" (Matter of Stolthaven Perth Amboy, Inc. v JLM Mktg., Inc., 47 A.D.3d 414, 415 [2008]; see Kaminsky v Segura, 26 A.D.3d 188, 189 [2006]).
Nor has respondent Webb established any other basis to avoid confirmation of the arbitration award. Any technical defect in the form of the arbitrator's affirmation was rectified by petitioner in its reply papers and, in any event, would not warrant vacatur of the award ( see Matter of Stolthaven Perth Amboy, Inc. v JLM Mktg., Inc., 47 AD3d 414; Matter of MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v Anastasio, 35 AD3d 474). We note further that a copy of the award was delivered to respondent Webb in the manner provided in the agreement ( see CPLR 7507).
[Supreme Court] did point to case law prohibiting class arbitrations in 1998, but even if this had constituted an error or mistake of law on the part of the majority arbitrators, such an error does not reach the level of manifest disregard to justify vacatur" ( Cheng v Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 45 AD3d at 357-358 [citations omitted]; see also Dortheimer v Safir, 49 AD3d 338 [1st Dept 2008] [nothing in lump-sum award suggested that arbitrators deliberately disregarded Labor Law issues regarding unpaid wages]; Stolthaven Perth Amboy, Inc. v JLM Marketing, Inc., 47 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2008]).