From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Angelo's Constr. v. Triangle Fixture Refrig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1988
145 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 5, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The petitioner contends that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by refusing to acknowledge a provision which was added by the parties to a standard form subcontract agreement. The petitioner singles out one arbitrator who allegedly expressed the view that he would not be bound by the terms and provisions of the subcontract, but would instead apply his knowledge of custom and usage in the industry. Additionally, the petitioner claims that the members of the arbitration panel should be disqualified because they purposefully delayed the hearings in order to extract additional fees from the parties.

The arbitrators' interpretation of the parties' subcontract is impervious to judicial challenge even where the apparent or plain meaning of the words of the agreement have been disregarded (see, Maross Constr. v Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 341). Arbitrators are often chosen because of their expertise in a particular area and they are allowed to focus their expertise on a particular point (see, Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker, 68 N.Y.2d 225, 231, remittitur amended 69 N.Y.2d 729). Since the petitioner instituted this proceeding in the midst of the arbitration hearings, it had not yet had the opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, its application is premature. If the arbitrators do in fact exceed their authority and render an improper award, the award will be subject to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (see, Matter of Siegel, 40 N.Y.2d 687, rearg denied 41 N.Y.2d 901). Regarding the petitioner's objection to the arbitrators' alleged squandering of time in order to secure a fee for a second day of hearings, we note that this is not a proper ground for disqualification (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [2]; Rabinowitz v Olewski, 100 A.D.2d 539). Lawrence, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Angelo's Constr. v. Triangle Fixture Refrig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1988
145 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Angelo's Constr. v. Triangle Fixture Refrig

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO'S CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent, v. TRIANGLE FIXTURE AND…

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

Date published: Dec 5, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Harris v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.

Moreover, the determination to allow or preclude the introduction of evidence pursuant to Education Law…

Harris v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.

Moreover, the determination to allow or preclude the introduction of evidence pursuant to Education Law…