Opinion
2021–07399 Index No. 516188/18
11-01-2023
JEWISH PRESS, INC., appellant, v. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP, respondent.
Aron Law, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Joseph H. Aron of counsel), for appellant. Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, NY (Thomas J. McGowan and Stephen W. Livingston of counsel), respondent pro se.
Aron Law, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Joseph H. Aron of counsel), for appellant.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, NY (Thomas J. McGowan and Stephen W. Livingston of counsel), respondent pro se.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, WILLIAM G. FORD, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, to recover a retainer, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), dated July 13, 2021. The order and judgment granted the defendant's motion to confirm an arbitration award dated December 2, 2019, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award, and is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in the principal sum of $66,383.70. ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover a retainer that it had paid to the defendant, a law firm. The plaintiff and the defendant engaged in arbitration on the plaintiff's claim for a refund of the retainer and the defendant's claim of legal fees owed to it by the plaintiff. The arbitrator found that the defendant had established its claim against the plaintiff and issued an arbitration award in the defendant's favor. The defendant moved to confirm the arbitration award, and the plaintiff cross-moved to vacate the arbitration award. In an order and judgment dated July 13, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarded the defendant the principal sum of $66,383.70. The plaintiff appeals.
"[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited" ( 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 Papa v. DePaola, 171 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 96 N.Y.S.3d 888, quoting Matter of Verille v. Jeanette, 163 A.D.3d 830, 830, 81 N.Y.S.3d 479 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "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 Papa v. DePaola, 171 A.D.3d at 1187, 96 N.Y.S.3d 888 [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 ).
" ‘Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies’ " ( Matter of Papa v. DePaola, 171 A.D.3d at 1187, 96 N.Y.S.3d 888, quoting 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 ). " ‘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’ " ( Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d at 480, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201, quoting Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d at 326, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 ).
Here, the plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that the plaintiff's rights were prejudiced or that the integrity of the arbitration process was impaired by misconduct or manifest disregard of the law (see Matter of NRT N.Y., LLC v. St. Arromand, 216 A.D.3d 641, 642, 187 N.Y.S.3d 107 ; Matter of Fagan v. Village of Harriman, 140 A.D.3d 868, 868, 33 N.Y.S.3d 401 ; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Schussheim, 122 A.D.3d 849, 850, 996 N.Y.S.2d 688 ). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers or that the arbitration award violated public policy (see Matter of Hempstead Classroom Teachers Assn. v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 203 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 162 N.Y.S.3d 754 ; Matter of Piller v. Eisner, 173 A.D.3d 1035, 1037, 103 N.Y.S.3d 125 ; Matter of Reddy v. Schaffer, 123 A.D.3d 935, 937, 1 N.Y.S.3d 123 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there is evidentiary support for the arbitration award, and it was not irrational (see Matter of Hempstead Classroom Teachers Assn. v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 203 A.D.3d at 1047, 162 N.Y.S.3d 754 ; Matter of Fagan v. Village of Harriman, 140 A.D.3d at 868, 33 N.Y.S.3d 401 ; Matter of Reddy v. Schaffer, 123 A.D.3d at 937, 1 N.Y.S.3d 123 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarded the defendant the principal sum of $66,383.70.
BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.