Opinion
2017–09446 Index No. 1645/17
11-13-2019
In the Matter of Agustin DELORA, etc., et al., Appellants, v. EDGE COMMUNITY APARTMENTS, Respondent.
Martin Druyan, New York, NY, for appellants. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard H. Block of counsel), for respondent.
Martin Druyan, New York, NY, for appellants.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard H. Block of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated March 19, 2017, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated June 2, 2017. The order denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
By petition dated May 17, 2017, the petitioners, Agustin Delora and his union, commenced this proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated March 19, 2017, which upheld the termination of Delora's employment with the respondent, Edge Community Apartments. In an order dated June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioners appeal. Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited (see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc. , 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 ). " ‘Unless an arbitration award violates a strong public policy, is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers, it may not be vacated’ " ( Matter of Verille v. Jeanette , 163 A.D.3d 830, 830, 81 N.Y.S.3d 479, quoting Matter of T & C Home Design, LLC v. Stylecraft Corp. , 140 A.D.3d 777, 778, 30 N.Y.S.3d 886 ; see Shnitkin v. Healthplex IPA, Inc. , 71 A.D.3d 979, 981, 896 N.Y.S.2d 467 ). The party seeking to vacate an arbitration award bears a "heavy burden" of proving by clear and convincing evidence that impropriety by the arbitrator prejudiced that party's rights or impaired the integrity of the arbitration process ( Matter of Denaro v. Cruz , 115 A.D.3d 742, 743, 981 N.Y.S.2d 585 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Quality Bldg. Constr., LLC v. Jagiello Constr. Corp. , 125 A.D.3d 973, 973, 4 N.Y.S.3d 294 ; Matter of Mounier v. American Tr. Ins. Co. , 36 A.D.3d 617, 617, 827 N.Y.S.2d 868 ; Matter of Local 295–295C, IUOE v. Phoenix Envtl. Servs. Corp. , 21 A.D.3d 901, 901, 800 N.Y.S.2d 516 ).
"Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies. A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one. Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice" ( 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 ; see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc. , 6 N.Y.3d at 479–480, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 ; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sedgewick of N.Y. , 43 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 842 N.Y.S.2d 68 ).
Here, the petitioners do not contend that the arbitration award violated public policy or exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, there is evidentiary support for the award dated March 19, 2017, and it was not irrational (see Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC , 123 A.D.3d 731, 732, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Matter of Gaymon v. MTA Bus Co. , 117 A.D.3d 735, 736, 985 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v. Barroga–Hayes , 89 A.D.3d 1094, 1095–1096, 933 N.Y.S.2d 409 ; Matter of MacDonald v. City of New Rochelle , 13 A.D.3d 537, 537, 786 N.Y.S.2d 318 ).
The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.