Opinion
March 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).
"[A]n arbitrator's award, so long as it stays within the bounds of rationality, may not be vacated for errors of law or fact" (Matter of Allen [New York State], 53 N.Y.2d 694, 696). Here, there is support in the record for the arbitrator's conclusions such that it cannot be said that the award is wholly irrational. Nor should the award be vacated on the basis of the arbitrator's finding that the meeting of October 28, 1988 — wherein the individual plaintiff was informed of the allegations of misconduct and advised that the distributorship would be terminated — satisfied defendant's obligation under paragraph 20 of the Distributor Agreement to give plaintiffs "reasonable opportunity to explain" any alleged wrongdoing. The "arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' contract is impervious to judicial challenge even where `the apparent, or even plain, meaning of the words' of the contract has been disregarded" (Maross Constr. v. Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 341, 346). Thus, the court may not, as plaintiffs would have it do, reassess the evidence and second guess the arbitrator's determination that the October 28, 1988 meeting satisfied the agreement.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.