Opinion
2553.
Decided December 23, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered March 17, 2003, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent's motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
David S. Smith, for Petitioners-Respondents.
Stuart A. Blander, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.
The arbitrators properly sanctioned respondent for his failure to comply with their order directing the production of documents by precluding the testimony of a witness and the introduction of evidence to which the undisclosed documents related. The policy of judicial noninterference with the arbitral process ( Matter of Neirs-Folkes, Inc. [Drake Ins. Co.], 75 A.D.2d 787, 788, affd 53 N.Y.2d 1038) requires the courts to afford wide discretion to the arbitrators in procedural matters, which will not be restricted without a compelling reason ( see Avon Prods. v. Solow, 150 A.D.2d 236, 239-240). A court will not "concern itself with the form or sufficiency of the evidence before the arbitrators or some departure from formal technicalities in the absence of a clear showing that statutory grounds exist for vacatur of the award" ( Korein v. Rabin, 29 A.D.2d 351, 356; see also Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v. Job, 239 A.D.2d 289, 291-292). Respondent has not shown that relevant public policy considerations bar imposition of the sanction of preclusion, or that the award is facially unenforceable ( Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 631). It is evident that respondent availed himself of the brokerage services provided to him by petitioners, and he was appropriately held responsible for the debit balance in his account resulting from trading losses.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.