In general, under New York law, a court lacks jurisdiction to confirm an award before it is final. See Loc. 100, Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO v. New York City Transit Auth., 237 A.D.2d 606, 607 (2d Dep't 1997) ("Courts do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration decisions like the one at issue here, and may only intervene after there has been a final determination at the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding"). Largo Holdings points to the federal caselaw which treats arbitration awards of interim security as "final" under the FAA for purposes of confinnation.
Courts do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration decisions, and may only intervene after there has been a final determination at the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America v. AFL-CIO, 237 A.D.2d 606, 607 (2d Dept. 1997), citing Mobil Oil Indonesia v. Asamera Oil, 43 N.Y.2d 276, 281-282 (1977), reh. den., 43 N.Y.2d 846 (1978); CPLR ยงยง 7501, 7511. In Local 100, supra, the Second Department reversed the trial court's determination that the arbitrator was without power to direct the parties to adhere to a prearranged arbitration schedule, concluding that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to vacate that "interlocutory procedural ruling." Id.