Opinion
2014-06-3
WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner–Appellant, v. VARIED CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent–Respondent.
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Neal M. Eiseman of counsel), for appellant. Tunstead & Schechter, Jericho (Michael D. Ganz of counsel), for respondent.
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Neal M. Eiseman of counsel), for appellant. Tunstead & Schechter, Jericho (Michael D. Ganz of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, FREEDMAN, CLARK, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2013, denying the petition to, inter alia, declare respondent in default, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The arbitrators had repeatedly denied petitioner's applications to declare respondent in default for failing to advance its share of arbitrator compensation, the governing arbitration rule barred defaults for nonpayment, and the court properly determined that it should not intervene at this juncture ( see Matter of Salvano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 85 N.Y.2d 173, 182, 623 N.Y.S.2d 790, 647 N.E.2d 1298 [1995];Mobil Oil Indonesia v. Asamera Oil [Indonesia], 43 N.Y.2d 276, 281, 401 N.Y.S.2d 186, 372 N.E.2d 21 [1977];Asesd, LLC v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc., 79 A.D.3d 418, 910 N.Y.S.2d 907 [1st Dept.2010] ).
The authorities relied upon by petitioner are not persuasive. Brandifino v. CryptoMetrics, Inc., 27 Misc.3d 513, 896 N.Y.S.2d 623 (Sup.Ct., Westchester County 2010) and Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Gatlin, 848 So.2d 828 (Miss.2003) did not involve arbitration rules prohibiting defaults; moreover, Brandofino implicated a policy concern not present here. Sink v. Aden Enterprises, Inc., 352 F.3d 1197 9th (Cir.2003) also did not involve a prohibition on defaults, and in that case the court upheld the default remedy granted by the arbitrator.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.