There is no merit to the appellants' contention that the right to counsel at an arbitration proceeding encompasses the right to be represented by a religious representative ( id.). The appellants' contention regarding the alleged improper service of a copy of the arbitration award was properly rejected by the Supreme Court, as the appellants failed to allege any prejudice stemming from the manner of service, nor is any prejudice apparent from the record ( see Matter of Westminster Constr. v. Peconic Bay Golf, 288 A.D.2d 231, 732 N.Y.S.2d 352; Matter of Jones v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 358, 655 N.Y.S.2d 74).
We reject this contention. Although the arbitrator may have failed to adhere to the rules requiring him to make an award within 15 days of the closing of the hearing, appellants did not raise an objection thereto pursuant to the NAA rules or demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delay ( see CPLR 7507; Matter of Jones v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 AD2d 358). Appellants further contend that the Civil Court was not authorized to modify the award under the circumstances presented.
It cannot be said that the arbitrator's "interpretation of the agreement . . . is violative of a strong public policy, . . . is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power" ( Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). Although the supplemental award of the arbitrator was untimely, claimant suffered no prejudice thereby and thus is not entitled to vacatur of the supplemental award on that ground ( see generally Matter of Jones v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 AD2d 358). We reject claimant's contention that the court erred in deducting $1,725 from the total award.
g did not constitute misconduct where there was an insufficient showing of cause for their last minute request ( cf. Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 215 A.D.2d 386, 387; Matter of Omega Contr. v. Maropakis Contr., 160 A.D.2d 942; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Provus, 149 A.D.2d 498). Furthermore, where, as here, Toll Land's prior motion was not denied on the merits but because of a purported procedural defect, the Supreme Court's determination to grant renewal upon correction of the defect was a provident exercise of discretion ( see S D Petroleum Co. v. Tamsett, 144 A.D.2d 849, 849-850; Lauer v. Rapp, 190 A.D.2d 778, 779; Abreu v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 87 A.D.2d 572). In any event, there were no procedural defects in the award itself which warranted its vacatur in the first instance, as no prejudice was claimed by the plaintiffs and none was evident on the record ( see Matter of Westminster Constr. v. Peconic Bay Golf, 288 A.D.2d 231, 232; Matter of Jones v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 358; Matter of Alava v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 183 A.D.2d 713, 714). The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
CPLR 7507 contains no provision that a late arbitration award is rendered unenforceable once a written objection is timely made. To vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator failed to adhere to the parties' contractual time limitation, the appellant was required to demonstrate that it suffered prejudice as a result of the delay (see, CPLR 7511[b][1]; Matter of Jones v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 358; Matter of Security Unit Empls. v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 546; Matter of Bermudez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 738; Matter of Akers v. New York City Tr. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 749, 751; Matter of Rockland Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers, Local 1871, AFT, AFL-CIO v. Board of Trustees of Rockland Community Coll., 142 A.D.2d 732, 732-733). The appellant's conclusory assertion of prejudice is insufficient to warrant vacatur of the arbitration award.
Respondents also argue that the rabbinical court violated the procedures of article 75 because the award was not served on respondents in accordance with CPLR 7507. However, in order to vacate an arbitration award for failure to comply with CPLR 7507, respondents must show prejudice ( Matter of Jones v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 AD2d 358 [2d Dept 1997]). Here, respondents have not alleged any prejudice and no prejudice is evident on this record.