Opinion
January 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant's principal argument on appeal is that the arbitrator exceeded his power in making the award or improperly executed the duties and powers provided by the arbitration agreement so that the award should not be considered final. Specifically, the defendant claims that the arbitrator's award ignored the second of two stipulations of settlement disposing of certain issues related to the parties' matrimonial action.
Judicial review of an arbitrator's award is extremely limited. Generally, once an issue has been decided by an arbitrator, questions of law and fact are not within the power of the judiciary to review, as they are merged in the award (see, North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v North Syracuse Educ. Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 195, 200). An arbitrator's award entered pursuant to a broad arbitration agreement will not be vacated unless the award is totally irrational, violative of a strong public policy, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation upon the arbitrator's authority (see, e.g., Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Employees Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907, 909; Matter of Albany County Sheriff's Local 775 [County of Albany], 63 N.Y.2d 654). Thus, an arbitrator's power to resolve a dispute is ordinarily plenary unless expressly limited by the terms of the agreement to arbitrate (see, CPLR art 75; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307-309). Absent such limitation, the arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or by rules of evidence but may do justice as he or she sees fit (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], supra; Matter of Frank v McKenna Dev. Group, 154 A.D.2d 674; Dicker v Jodi-Lynn Washomatic, 149 A.D.2d 649).
Here, the arbitration was conducted pursuant to a broad arbitration clause in the parties' arbitration agreement which enpowered the arbitrator to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the two stipulations at issue, without limitation. Absent an express limitation on the power of the arbitrator, the award made did not exceed his power. Notably, the arbitrator made specific reference to the stipulation dated November 1, 1984, which the defendant alleged he ignored, and incorporated the provisions of that stipulation into the award. As the arbitrator's reading of that stipulation and the award itself are not irrational, violative of public policy or in excess of a specific limitation upon the arbitrator's power, the award was properly confirmed. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.