Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent procured his award of uninsured motorist benefits through fraud (see, Imgest Fin. Establishment v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 172 A.D.2d 291). Accordingly, it has not established that the arbitrator's award should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i).
The arbitrator was fully aware of the appellant's contentions with respect to the respondent's alleged fraud, but nevertheless concluded that the respondent was entitled to an award. It is well settled that the "[c]ourts are reluctant to disturb the decisions of arbitrators lest the value of this method of resolving controversies be undermined [and] * * * it is imperative that the integrity of the process, as opposed to the correctness of the individual decision be zealously safeguarded" (Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker, 68 N.Y.2d 225, 230; see also, Matter of Siegel [Lewis], 40 N.Y.2d 687). Moreover, the appellant never established that the respondent's claim was excluded by the language of the underlying policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.