Dedvukaj v. Parlato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dedvukaj v. Parlato

136 A.D.3d 733, 24 N.Y.S.3d 530

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2014-05699

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 733 (Dedvukaj v. Parlato) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dedvukaj v. Parlato, 136 A.D.3d 733, 24 N.Y.S.3d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 24, 2014, granting the motion of the defendants Ronald H. Parlato and Shell Builders Corp. to confirm an arbitration award dated January 7, 2013, and denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to vacate the award, is in favor of the defendant Shell Builders Corp. and against them in the principal sum of $602,455.63.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 AD3d 878 [2012]). The award “must be upheld when the arbitrator offer [s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Outside of the narrowly circumscribed exceptions of CPLR *734 7511, “courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact” (Matter of Eastman Assoc., Inc. [Juan Ortoo Holdings, Ltd.], 90 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, each of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration award either concerns an unreviewable error of law or fact (see id. at 1284), fails to establish that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 AD3d at 879), or fails to establish that the award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator’s power (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; Matter of Reddy v Schaffer, 123 AD3d 935, 936 [2014]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 24, 2014, granting the motion of the defendants Ronald H. Parlato and Shell Builders Corp. to confirm an arbitration award dated January 7, 2013, and denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to vacate the award, is in favor of the defendant Shell Builders Corp. and against them in the principal sum of $602,455.63.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 AD3d 878 [2012]). The award “must be upheld when the arbitrator offer [s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Outside of the narrowly circumscribed exceptions of CPLR *734 7511, “courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact” (Matter of Eastman Assoc., Inc. [Juan Ortoo Holdings, Ltd.], 90 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, each of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration award either concerns an unreviewable error of law or fact (see id. at 1284), fails to establish that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 AD3d at 879), or fails to establish that the award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator’s power (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; Matter of Reddy v Schaffer, 123 AD3d 935, 936 [2014]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 733, 24 N.Y.S.3d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dedvukaj-v-parlato-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack