Summary
In Wagner Stott, the arbitrator's brother was an independent securities broker, and had transacted substantial business through a clearing house that was wholly owned by petitioner's parent company, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Smith. The First Department held that even assuming the arbitrator was aware of his brother's business relationship with another subsidiary of petitioner's parent company, "the relationship was too attenuated to raise even an inference or appearance of partiality."
Summary of this case from IN RE SOMA PARTNERS v. NORTHEST BIOTHERAPEUTICSOpinion
March 12, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.).
Appellants seek to vacate the unanimous award of a panel of three arbitrators based upon the failure of one of the arbitrators to disclose that his brother, an independent securities broker, transacted substantial business through a clearing house that was wholly owned by the petitioner's parent company, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Smith. Not all undisclosed relationships will result in disqualification or provide a basis to vacate an arbitration award for the appearance of bias or partiality ( see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 N.Y.2d 190, 201; Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 A.D.2d 913, affd 12 N.Y.2d 806). In this case, assuming arguendo, the arbitrator was aware of his brother's business relationship with another subsidiary of petitioner's parent organization, the relationship is too attenuated to raise even an inference or appearance of partiality. Under the circumstances, therefore, the failure of the arbitrator to disclose the relationship does not necessitate a vacatur of the award. We note appellants here utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of actual bias on the part of the arbitrator in question ( see, Matter of Kornit [Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist.], 49 N.Y.2d 842).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.