Opinion
April 21, 1997
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to disqualify an arbitrator appointed by Grace-Lansing Grace Industries, Inc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 28, 1995, which, inter alia, denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's application, inter alia, to disqualify the arbitrator appointed by the respondents. Discussions between an arbitrator and a party concerning fees after the commencement of the arbitration proceeding may constitute misconduct so as to render disqualification an appropriate remedy or vitiate any award (see, Matter of Goldfinger v. Lisker, 68 N.Y.2d 225; Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. [City of Long Beach], 164 A.D.2d 817; Matter of Elia Bldg. Co. [County of Niagara], 8 A.D.2d 684; Matter of Franks [Penn-Uranium Corp.], 4 A.D.2d 39, 40). There is, however, no per se rule that such communications constitute misconduct impairing the integrity of the arbitration process (see, Matter of Goldfinger v. Lisker, supra, at 232). Rather, the particular facts and circumstances of each case must be examined to reach an appropriate determination. Upon our review of the facts and circumstances here, we conclude that the petitioner failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to support a finding of misconduct, or to raise questions of possible bias or partiality (cf., Matter of Reale [Healy N Y Corp.], 54 A.D.2d 1039, 1040).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.