From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Hekal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2008
57 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

December 18, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 11, 2008, which granted the petition to vacate a prior order of the arbitrators directing exchange of information, only to the extent of granting respondent's cross motion for discovery to be conducted under the supervision of the arbitrators, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition and the cross motion denied, and this proceeding dismissed.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.


The court lacked authority to entertain the petition to review an intermediary ruling of the arbitrators on a procedural matter ( see Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil [Indonesia], 43 NY2d 276; Avon Prods, v Solow, 150 AD2d 236, 239-240). Such intervention is not authorized by the CPLR, and is proscribed as a matter of policy. The relief "would disjoint and unduly delay the proceedings, thereby thwarting the very purpose of arbitration ( Mobil Oil Indonesia, 43 NY2d at 282).

With respect to the cross motion, the court erroneously determined that the arbitrators lacked authority to direct the parties to produce documents. Although the CPLR does not itself authorize arbitrators "to direct the parties to engage in disclosure proceedings" ( De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406), no statute or policy prevents parties from charting their own procedural course in arbitration by voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rules of the arbitral forum, including, as in this case, rules permitting the arbitrators to direct the exchange of information ( see American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration rule R-21 [a] [i]). The strong policy of this State requires the courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, and to leave to the arbitrators the interpretation and application of the procedural rules of the arbitral forum ( Matter of Sobel [Charles Schwab Co., Inc.], 37 AD3d 877, 878; Matter of Faberge, Inc. [Felsway Corp.], 149 AD2d 369, 370, lv denied 74 NY2d 610).

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 34200(U).]


Summaries of

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Hekal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2008
57 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

CSP Technologies, Inc. v. Hekal

Case Details

Full title:CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. IHAB M. HEKAL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 18, 2008

Citations

57 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
869 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Adorno

Id. GEICO argues that it did not receive notice until the Arbitration Demand, dated September 1, 2011. By…

Harris v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.

A decision to deny a motion to preclude the introduction of evidence is not an arbitration award within the…