Opinion
8545 Index 655455/17
02-28-2019
In re David James MURPHY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
David James Murphy, appellant pro se. Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Joseph Baumgarten of counsel), for respondents.
David James Murphy, appellant pro se.
Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Joseph Baumgarten of counsel), for respondents.
Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered March 13, 2018, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed petitioner's claims against his former employer, and granted respondents' cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The hearing evidence demonstrates a reasonable basis for the panel's award denying petitioner's claims against his former employer (see Matter of Uram v. Garfinkel, 16 A.D.3d 347, 349, 792 N.Y.S.2d 430 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 717, 808 N.Y.S.2d 141, 842 N.E.2d 27 [2005] ; D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110 [2d Cir.2006] ). The panel's reference to petitioner's age and marital status did not demonstrate a discriminatory bias against his case. "[B]ias must be clearly apparent based upon established facts" ( Bronx–Lebanon Hosp. Ctr. v. Signature Med. Mgt. Group, 6 A.D.3d 261, 261, 775 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1st Dept. 2004] ), and here, petitioner himself intertwined his age and martial status in the issues that were before the panel to such a degree that the panel could not disregard their pertinence to the issues to be decided.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.