Opinion
2268, M-5662
November 19, 2002.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2001, which granted petitioner's motion to confirm the modified arbitration award, denied respondent's cross motion to vacate the modified award and awarded petitioner the total amount of $372,096.94, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
PETER C. MOSKOWITZ, for petitioner-respondent.
JAY L.T. BREAKSTONE, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Rubin, Friedman, JJ.
Respondent has not demonstrated grounds for vacatur of the modified award. The arbitrators' limited document production directive was consistent with their "inherent power to control the course of the arbitration proceedings so as to permit a party to elicit relevant information" (see Guilford Mills v. Rice Pudding, Ltd., 90 A.D.2d 468,appeal dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 1113). Appellant consented without qualification to the mid-hearing suggestion as to the panel chairman's bills, which suggestion, under the circumstances of this case, involved no impropriety (see Matter of Montague Pipeline Techs. Corp. v. Grace-Lansing, 238 A.D.2d 510). We perceive no evidentiary error by the arbitrators rising "'to a level so prejudicial as to constitute misconduct sufficient to justify judicial interference'" (see Buck v. Edelman, 235 A.D.2d 376, 377, quoting Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. Law Enforcement Empls. Dist. Council 82 [Coughing], 183 A.D.2d 1034). The record discloses that the arbitrator's award was properly modified pursuant to CPLR 7509 and, in any case, respondent has demonstrated no prejudice by reason of the modification errors alleged (see Matter of Meisels v. Uhr, 79 N.Y.2d 526, 535).
Motion seeking leave to supplement record denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.