Opinion
June 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
A party seeking to set aside an arbitration award for alleged bias of an arbitrator must establish his claim by "`"clear and convincing proof"'" ( Matter of Disston Co. [Aktiebolag], 176 A.D.2d 679, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 757). "And the mere inference of partiality * * * is not sufficient to warrant interference with the arbitrator's award" ( Rose v. Lowery Co., 181 A.D.2d 418, 419). Petitioner has shown only that one of the three arbitrators actively questioned witnesses during the proceeding in a manner displaying skepticism of petitioner's position in the underlying contractual dispute. That does not satisfy petitioner's heavy burden of demonstrating bias.
Also without merit is petitioner's argument that the arbitration award should be set aside because it is unable to comprehend how the arbitrators reached the particular dollar amount of the award. "The path of analysis, proof and persuasion by which an arbitrator reaches a conclusion is beyond judicial scrutiny" ( Matter of Vermilya [Distin], 157 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 710). Moreover, the arbitrator "may do justice * * * and [make] an award reflecting the spirit rather than the letter of the agreement" ( Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308).
Petitioner's claim of fraud in the inducement did not require that the arbitration be stayed. Fraud in the inducement was properly a matter for the arbitrators to decide under the broad arbitration clause contained in the underlying agreements ( supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.