Opinion
11033-11033A & M-7641 Index 652201/18
02-13-2020
In re Rebecca L. CENNI, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Adrian CENNI, Respondent–Appellant.
Nadel & Ciarlo, P.C., New York (Lorraine Nadel of counsel), for appellant. Farrell Fritz, P.C., New York (Peter A. Mahler of counsel), for respondent.
Nadel & Ciarlo, P.C., New York (Lorraine Nadel of counsel), for appellant.
Farrell Fritz, P.C., New York (Peter A. Mahler of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, J.), entered November 15, 2018, in favor of petitioner in the total amount of $216,864.56, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 25, 2018, which granted petitioner's petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent's cross petition to vacate the award, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
While certain portions of the Operating Agreements governing the companies of which the parties are members or shareholders support respondent's position, others support petitioner's. Because the Operating Agreement "is reasonably susceptible of the construction given it by the arbitrator[ ]" ( Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson] , 8 N.Y.2d 377, 383, 208 N.Y.S.2d 951, 171 N.E.2d 302 [1960] ), it is not irrational (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York , 94 N.Y.2d 321, 326, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 [1999] ; Maross Constr. v. Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth. , 66 N.Y.2d 341, 497 N.Y.S.2d 321, 488 N.E.2d 67 [1985] ; Madison Realty Capital, L.P. v. Scarborough–St. James Corp. , 135 A.D.3d 652, 653, 25 N.Y.S.3d 83 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 912, 2016 WL 4533516 [2016] ).
Respondent contends that the award is contrary to the Limited Liability Company Act. Even if, arguendo, this were true, "courts are obligated to give deference to the decision of the arbitrator ... even if the arbitrator misapplied the substantive law in the area of the contract" ( Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL–CIO , 6 N.Y.3d 332, 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 413, 845 N.E.2d 1243 [2005] ).
Furthermore, respondent argues that the arbitrator exceeded the authority set forth in the parties' agreement. However, he fails to point to a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power (see id. ; see also Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats] , 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984] ).
While respondent and/or his counsel were sloppy in answering the verified petition, their conduct was not so egregious as to warrant sanctions.
M–7641 – In re Cenni v. Cenni
Motion for sanctions denied.