Opinion
September 23, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
The meaning and effect of the disputed buy-out provision are clearly within the scope of the broad arbitration clause, and its claimed misinterpretation by the arbitrator as a buyer-initiated rather than a seller-initiated provision is not a ground for judicial interference ( see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307-308). Nor is it a ground for interference that the arbitrator did not set forth how he arrived at the price for the buyout ( see, Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 N.Y.2d 621, 626), which, given the evidence of appraised value, can hardly be said to be "completely irrational" ( Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 N.Y.2d 377, 383). It was also proper for the court to implement the award by directing that plaintiff pay the transfer taxes upon conveyance of his interest in the property ( see, Matter of Marfrak Realty Corp. v Samfred Realty Corp., 140 A.D.2d 524, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 614).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.