Opinion
8011 Index 152363/17
01-03-2019
In re PRIDE TECHNOLOGIES OF OHIO, LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Chris PHILPOTT, Respondent–Respondent.
Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York (Neal H. Klausner of counsel), for appellant. Finney Law Firm, Cincinnati OH (Stephen E. Imm of the bar of the State of Ohio, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York (Neal H. Klausner of counsel), for appellant.
Finney Law Firm, Cincinnati OH (Stephen E. Imm of the bar of the State of Ohio, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered February 15, 2018, inter alia, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The arbitrator did not rewrite the parties' profit sharing agreement, nor was it irrational for her to determine that such agreement provides not only that its effective date is February 7, 2007, but also that respondent's profit interest will be credited or debited during "each full calendar year of employment," which, consistent with that provision, includes years preceding 2008 (see e.g. Azrielant v. Azrielant, 301 A.D.2d 269, 275, 752 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept. 2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 509, 760 N.Y.S.2d 100, 790 N.E.2d 274 [2003] ; compare Matter of Riverbay Corp. [Local 32–E, S.E.I.V., AFL–CIO], 91 A.D.2d 509, 510, 456 N.Y.S.2d 378 [1st Dept. 1982] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.