Matter of Abell v. JetBlue Airways Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Abell v. JetBlue Airways Corp.

134 A.D.3d 476, 19 N.Y.S.3d 889

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 2015·No. 16352 650691/10·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), *477 entered February 18, 2015, which denied petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award, and granted respondent’s cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden of showing that the arbitrator did not even “arguably” interpret the parties’ employment agreement in rendering his award and therefore he exceeded his arbitral powers pursuant to section 10 (a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 10) (see Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter, 569 US _, _, 133 S Ct 2064, 2068 [2013]). It is apparent from the face of the award that the arbitrator analyzed the agreement and subsequent amendments closely and carefully, and that is all that is required to preclude the court from overruling him (id. at 2070-2071).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), *477 entered February 18, 2015, which denied petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award, and granted respondent’s cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden of showing that the arbitrator did not even “arguably” interpret the parties’ employment agreement in rendering his award and therefore he exceeded his arbitral powers pursuant to section 10 (a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 10) (see Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter, 569 US _, _, 133 S Ct 2064, 2068 [2013]). It is apparent from the face of the award that the arbitrator analyzed the agreement and subsequent amendments closely and carefully, and that is all that is required to preclude the court from overruling him (id. at 2070-2071).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of Abell v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 134 A.D.3d 476, 19 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 476 (Matter of Abell v. JetBlue Airways Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related