Opinion
Decided November 19, 2001.
Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered November 6, 2000, which modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Simeon Golar, J.), entered in Queens County, granting petitioner's motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denying respondent's cross motion to vacate the award, in favor of the petitioner in the principal sum of $166,673.09, including an award of $78,000 for the design and engineering of new aluminum windows. The modification consisted of (1) deleting the provision granting that branch of the application to confirm so much of the award of $166,673.09 as awarded $78,000 for the design and engineering of new aluminum windows and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the application, (2) deleting the provision denying that branch of the cross motion which was to vacate the award of $78,000 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion, and (3) deleting the principal sum of $166,673.09 and substituting therefor an award in the principal sum of $88,673.09.
Craig M. Nisnewitz, for appellant.
Kostas T. Golfinopoulos, for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.
Jaidan Industries, Inc. agreed to manufacture windows for M.A. Angeliades, Inc. Though Jaidan partially performed, Angeliades refused to pay and did not allow Jaidan to continue work. Jaidan demanded arbitration, seeking $250,000 in damages; Angeliades counterclaimed for $100,000.
An arbitrator awarded Jaidan $166,673.09, including $78,000 for "design and engineering new aluminum windows." Jaidan commenced this article 75 proceeding to confirm its award. Angeliades cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging that because Jaidan had not employed a licensed engineer or architect, the $78,000 awarded for the windows violated New York's Education Law, which prohibits the unlicensed practice of engineering or architecture (see, New York Education Law §§ 7201-7202, 7301-7302). Supreme Court confirmed the award and denied Angeliades' motion. The Appellate Division, however, modified by vacating $78,000 of the award, concluding that because it was undisputed Jaidan was not licensed to perform architectural and engineering services, "on its face, the arbitrator's award * * * violated public policy" ( 277 A.D.2d 237, 238). We now reverse.
An arbitration award may be vacated on public policy grounds only where it is clear on its face that public policy precludes its enforcement (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 631). That is not the case here. The award for "design and engineering new aluminum windows" does not necessarily violate public policy (see, e.g., Charlebois v. Weller Assocs., 72 N.Y.2d 587, 593-595 [contract with unlicensed corporation that included the rendition of professional services did not "violate the pertinent Education Law licensing protections or the public policy which underlies them"]).
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, reinstated, in a memorandum.