Opinion
16643 Index No. 800835/21 Case No. 2022-01345
11-15-2022
In the Matter of Cedric JACKSON, Petitioner–Respondent, v. MAIN STREET AMERICAN GROUP, Respondent–Appellant.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Kim Townsend of counsel), for appellant. Burns & Harris, New York (Mariel Crippen of counsel), for respondent.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Kim Townsend of counsel), for appellant.
Burns & Harris, New York (Mariel Crippen of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Gesmer, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered February 10, 2022, which granted petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent's cross motion to confirm the arbitration award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, petitioner's motion denied, and respondent's cross motion granted.
Contrary to respondent's contention, the lack of a transcript from the arbitration hearing does not, by itself, preclude judicial review of the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (see e.g. Matter of Fried v. Polacco, 190 A.D.3d 414, 414, 135 N.Y.S.3d 639 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Nevertheless, petitioner's motion to vacate the arbitration award should have been denied. Review of an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(b) is limited, and an award will be upheld when the arbitrator " ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ " ( Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [2006] ; see Matter of Rose Castle Redevelopment II, LLC v. Franklin Realty Corp., 184 A.D.3d 230, 234, 126 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 906, 2021 WL 509855 [2021] ). Here, the arbitrator set forth a plausible basis for the award, including for the amount of damages for past and future pain and suffering. Petitioner's disagreements with the arbitrator's credibility determinations, and with his analysis of which cases and arbitration awards were comparable to the facts of this case, did not provide a sufficient basis for overturning the award (see Fried at 414, 135 N.Y.S.3d 639 ).