Opinion
February 11, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.).
Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, plaintiff American States Insurance Company (hereinafter the carrier) insured certain premises owned by plaintiff Ames Furniture Company, Inc. located in the City of Plattsburgh, Clinton County. Following a structural fire at that location, both Ames and the carrier, as subrogee, commenced separate actions against defendant, an electrical contractor, alleging, inter alia, that defendant had negligently performed certain wiring work at the premises. The two actions subsequently were consolidated, and the parties agreed by correspondence to submit the matter to arbitration. Accordingly, Supreme Court canceled the scheduled trial and, following arbitration, an award was made in favor of defendant. The carrier then moved to restore the action to the trial calendar; defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to confirm the arbitration award. Supreme Court denied the carrier's motion and granted defendant's cross motion, prompting this appeal by the carrier.
We affirm. Initially, we reject the carrier's contention that there was no written agreement to arbitrate. To be sure, a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate must be in writing (see, CPLR 7501). There is, however, no requirement that the writing be signed, provided, there is other proof that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate (see, e.g., Matter of Crawford v. Feldman, 199 A.D.2d 265, 266), nor is there any requirement that the parties' agreement be encompassed in "a single comprehensive document" (5 N.Y. Jur. 2d, Arbitration and Award, § 17, at 45-46).
Here, by letter dated October 22, 1996, counsel for the carrier advised defendant's counsel and Supreme Court that the carrier "agree[d] to arbitrate this matter". Thereafter, by letter dated November 19, 1996, counsel for the carrier consented to defendant's choice of arbitrator and, in April 1997, confirmed in writing that the arbitration would take place in June 1997. In our view, the foregoing documents are sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement imposed by CPLR 7501 N.Y.C.P.L.R. and, further, to evidence the carrier's intent to arbitrate the underlying dispute.
Equally unpersuasive is the carrier's argument the arbitrator's award is not binding upon the parties because the arbitration merely was advisory in nature. Any limitation upon the arbitrator's plenary powers must be expressly set forth in the arbitration agreement (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307), and no such limitation appears in the record before us. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly confirmed the arbitrator's award.
Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.