Opinion
October 21, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.).
Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Appellants contend that the arbitrators exceeded their power and issued a totally irrational award. We find this contention unpersuasive. The instant arbitration clause was extremely broad, giving the arbitrators the power to settle any dispute arising out of the terms of a stockholders' agreement. Since this case involved a dispute over a mortgage payment provision contained within said agreement, it is clear that the arbitrators acted within their power in interpreting the provision. Because the arbitration clause contained no express or implied limitation upon the remedial power of the arbitrators, it cannot be said that they exceeded their power in issuing the instant award (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Dover-Wingdale Teachers' Assn., 61 N.Y.2d 913).
Moreover, the award itself is not a totally irrational interpretation of the disputed contract provision. It is apparent that the arbitrators properly exercised their power in construing the contract in light of what they found to be the intent of the parties (see, Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines], 50 N.Y.2d 1007, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770; Matter of Morris v County of Suffolk, 106 A.D.2d 446). Although their interpretation may have contained errors of fact or law, said errors are insufficient grounds for vacatur or modification of the award (see, CPLR 7511; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299; Matter of Riverbay Corp. [Local 32-E], 91 A.D.2d 509). We further find that Special Term's interpretation of the award was entirely proper. Accordingly, we affirm the order of Special Term, insofar as appealed from. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.