Opinion
06-01-2016
In the Matter of T & C HOME DESIGN, LLC, petitioner-respondent, v. STYLECRAFT CORPORATION, respondent-appellant, et al., respondent.
Michael J. Doyle, New York, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
Michael J. Doyle, New York, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
Opinion In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, Stylecraft Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 3, 2013, as granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $20,000.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Unless an arbitration award violates a strong public policy, is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers, it may not be vacated (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 ; Matter of Local Div. 1179, Amalgamated Tr. Union, AFL–CIO [Green Bus Lines], 50 N.Y.2d 1007, 1008–1009, 431 N.Y.S.2d 680, 409 N.E.2d 1354 ; Rochester City School Dist. v. Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 N.Y.2d 578, 582–583, 394 N.Y.S.2d 179, 362 N.E.2d 977 ). Where the parties to a contract agree to submit disputes to an arbitrator, “[c]ourts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 326, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 ; see Matter of Tsikitas v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 33 A.D.3d 928, 822 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; Matter of New York State Nurses Assn. [Mount Sinai Hosp.], 275 A.D.2d 538, 540, 712 N.Y.S.2d 200 ). Absent a provision to the contrary in an arbitration agreement, arbitrators are not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence (see Lentine v. Fundaro, 29 N.Y.2d 382, 385, 328 N.Y.S.2d 418, 278 N.E.2d 633 ). Thus, an arbitration award will not be vacated even where the court concludes that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law (see Matter of Local Div. 1179, Amalgamated Tr. Union, AFL–CIO [Green Bus Lines], 50 N.Y.2d at 1008–1009, 431 N.Y.S.2d 680, 409 N.E.2d 1354 ; Rochester City School Dist. v. Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 N.Y.2d at 582–583, 394 N.Y.S.2d 179, 362 N.E.2d 977 ; Matter of Merrick Union Free School Dist. v. Merrick Faculty Assn., Inc., 87 A.D.3d 536, 539, 928 N.Y.S.2d 60 ).
Here, the appellant does not contend that the arbitration award violated public policy or was irrational. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the arbitration award did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers (see generally Matter of MacDonald v. City of New Rochelle, 13 A.D.3d 537, 537, 786 N.Y.S.2d 318 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.
MASTRO, J.P., MALTESE, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.