In re the Arbitration between Five Boro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. & Van-Tulco, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Five Boro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. & Van-Tulco, Inc.

180 A.D.2d 558, 580 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered December 5, 1990, pursuant to an order of the same court, dated November 29, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent’s cross-motion to [559] vacate or modify such award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract is irrational. An arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ contract is not subject to judicial challenge "even where 'the apparent, or even the plain, meaning of the words’ of the contract has been disregarded” (Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341, 346, quoting Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582). The reference in the contract to price per square foot is ambiguous, and, particularly in view of numerous other references to the "Contract Sum”, an interpretation of this contract as one calling for a payment in a lump sum cannot be considered "completely irrational” (Matter of Kingsley v Redevco Corp., 97 AD2d 364, 365, affd 61 NY2d 714). Concur—Sullivan, J. R, Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered December 5, 1990, pursuant to an order of the same court, dated November 29, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent’s cross-motion to [559] vacate or modify such award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract is irrational. An arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ contract is not subject to judicial challenge "even where 'the apparent, or even the plain, meaning of the words’ of the contract has been disregarded” (Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341, 346, quoting Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582). The reference in the contract to price per square foot is ambiguous, and, particularly in view of numerous other references to the "Contract Sum”, an interpretation of this contract as one calling for a payment in a lump sum cannot be considered "completely irrational” (Matter of Kingsley v Redevco Corp., 97 AD2d 364, 365, affd 61 NY2d 714). Concur—Sullivan, J. R, Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between Five Boro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. & Van-Tulco, Inc., 180 A.D.2d 558, 580 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

180 A.D.2d 558 (In re the Arbitration between Five Boro Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. & Van-Tulco, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related