Opinion
2012-04-12
David H. BROOKS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, Respondent–Respondent.
Garvey Schubert Barer, New York (Malcolm Seymour III of counsel), for appellant. DLA Piper LLP (US), New York (Anthony P. Ashton, of the bars of the State of Maryland and the State of Virginia, admitted pro hac vice, and John Vukelj of counsel), for respondent.
Garvey Schubert Barer, New York (Malcolm Seymour III of counsel), for appellant. DLA Piper LLP (US), New York (Anthony P. Ashton, of the bars of the State of Maryland and the State of Virginia, admitted pro hac vice, and John Vukelj of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered March 1, 2011, which granted respondent's motion to confirm an arbitration award in the total amount of $383,545.04, and denied petitioner's cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The arbitration award was properly confirmed since the arbitration panel did not engage in any misconduct to warrant vacatur of the award ( see CPLR 7511 [b][1][i] ). There is no indication that the panel precluded or restricted the parties from submitting any evidence on the motion. Indeed, the record shows that the parties submitted extensive briefs and documentary evidence in support of their respective positions. Although the panel made a determination of the proceeding on respondent's motion for summary judgment, this was not improper since arbitrators are not compelled to conduct hearings, and may decide a case on summary judgment ( see e.g. TIG Ins. Co. v. Global Intl. Reins. Co., Ltd., 640 F.Supp.2d 519, 523 [S.D.N.Y.2009]; see also Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 58 F.Supp.2d 212, 219–220 [S.D.N.Y.1999] ). Moreover, the arbitration clause of the parties' Engagement Letter did not prohibit the arbitrators from using this type of disposition ( see Matter of Silverman [ Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984]; cf. Barnes v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 40 A.D.3d 357, 835 N.Y.S.2d 564 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 815, 849 N.Y.S.2d 31, 879 N.E.2d 171 [2007], cert. denied 553 U.S. 1057, 128 S.Ct. 2479, 171 L.Ed.2d 772 [2008] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contention and find them unavailing.