Opinion
June 21, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant, which is in the business of selling dairy products, contracted to purchase certain computer software and hardware from the petitioner. When a dispute arose between the parties, it was submitted to arbitration, and the petitioner was awarded a sum of money in exchange for its delivery to the appellant of the current version of the bargained-for software. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding to confirm this award. In response, the appellant sought to have the award vacated, asserting both that the petitioner obtained the award by fraud and that the award itself was indefinite and irrational. However, the appellant has failed to proffer the clear and convincing proof needed to show that the award was procured through fraud (see, Oppenheimer v. Westcott, 47 N.Y.2d 595; Imgest Fin. Establishment v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 172 A.D.2d 291; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 7511.14), and failed to show that the arbitration award was indefinite or irrational (see, Matter of Meisels v. Uhr, 79 N.Y.2d 526; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299; Matter of Zeller Goldschmidt v. Cooper, Selvin Strassberg, 167 A.D.2d 548; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 7511.17). Therefore, the award was properly confirmed.
Although the appellant's arguments on appeal are without merit, they do not warrant sanctions (see, e.g., Leggio v. Leggio, 183 A.D.2d 815; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.