Opinion
05-31-2017
In the Matter of COUNTY OF NASSAU, appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent.
Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP, Mineola, NY (Stephen L. Martir of counsel), for appellant. Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, NY, for respondent.
Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP, Mineola, NY (Stephen L. Martir of counsel), for appellant.
Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, NY, for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated September 4, 2014, in which the Civil Service Employees Association cross-petitioned to confirm the award, the County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered March 23, 2015, which, in effect, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited (see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 ; A & L Vil. Mkt., Inc. v. 344 Vil., Inc., 140 A.D.3d 804, 805, 33 N.Y.S.3d 402 ; Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC, 123 A.D.3d 731, 732, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916 ). An arbitration award may be vacated if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power (see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 N.Y.3d 530, 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 67, 939 N.E.2d 1197 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v. Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 N.Y.2d 33, 37, 571 N.Y.S.2d 425, 574 N.E.2d 1031 ; Matter of Pinkesz v. Wertzberger, 139 A.D.3d 1071, 1072, 30 N.Y.S.3d 832 ; Matter of Slocum v. Madariaga, 123 A.D.3d 1046, 999 N.Y.S.2d 483 ; Matter of Braver v. Silberman, 90 A.D.3d 654, 656, 936 N.Y.S.2d 211 ). In addition, pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(i), an arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by "corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award." The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that vacatur is appropriate under one or more of these grounds (see Matter of Kirchhoff–Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Mechtronics Corp., 144 A.D.3d 682, 683, 41 N.Y.S.3d 235 ; Matter of Quality Bldg. Constr., LLC v Jagiello Constr. Corp., 125 A.D.3d 973, 973–974, 4 N.Y.S.3d 294 ).
Here, the County of Nassau failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that it was irrational (see Matter of Fagan v. Village of Harriman, 140 A.D.3d 868, 868, 33 N.Y.S.3d 401 ; Matter of Reddy v. Schaffer, 123 A.D.3d 935, 937, 1 N.Y.S.3d 123 ). Additionally, the County failed to establish that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct (see Dedvukaj v. Parlato, 136 A.D.3d 733, 734, 24 N.Y.S.3d 530 ; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 A.D.3d 878, 879, 955 N.Y.S.2d 100 ) or that the award violated public policy (see Matter of County of Nassau v. Sheriff's Officers Assn., 294 A.D.2d 31, 743 N.Y.S.2d 503 ). Accordingly, the Supreme
Court properly, in effect, denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award, and granted the cross petition to confirm the arbitration award.
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, BALKIN and BARROS, JJ., concur.