Matter of Minutello v. J.C. Constr. Mgt. Corp.

Opinion

Matter of Minutello v J.C. Constr. Mgt. Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 04949

August 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of James Minutello, respondent,

v

J.C. Construction Management Corp., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 12, 2026

2025-00771, 2025-03469, (Index No. 619995/24)

Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Lillian Wan

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, Ronkonkoma, NY (David H. Green of counsel), for appellant.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated March 11, 2024, J.C. Construction Management Corp. appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christopher Modelewski, J.), dated December 2, 2024, and (2) an order of the same court dated February 5, 2025. The order dated December 2, 2024, granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied the cross-motion of J.C. Construction Management Corp., inter alia, to vacate or modify the arbitration award. The order dated February 5, 2025, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the motion of J.C. Construction Management Corp. which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) and (3) to vacate the order dated December 2, 2024.

ORDERED that the order dated December 2, 2024, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated February 5, 2025, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, James Minutello, entered into a contract with J.C. Construction Management Corp. (hereinafter JCCM), for the design and construction of a single-family home located in East Hampton. During the design phase of the contact, prior to any construction, Minutello attempted to terminate the contract, and JCCM demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded JCCM $1,825,000. Minutello thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm the arbitration award. JCCM opposed and cross-moved, inter alia, to vacate or modify the award. In an order dated December 2, 2024, the Supreme Court granted Minutello's petition and denied JCCM's cross-motion. Thereafter, JCCM moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) and (3) to vacate the order dated December 2, 2024, based on newly discovered emails. Minutello opposed. In an order dated February 5, 2025, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of JCCM's motion. JCCM appeals from the orders.

"It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited" (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479; see Matter of Douglas Elliman of LI, LLC v O'Callaghan, 220 AD3d 945, 946). "A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award bears a heavy burden and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence" (Matter of Centurion Cos., Inc. v Bowne Tech Constr. Corp., 240 AD3d 778, 780 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "CPLR 7511(b) enumerates the limited grounds upon which an award may be vacated, including, as relevant here, that the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority" (Matter of Douglas Elliman of LI, LLC v O'Callaghan, 220 AD3d at 946; see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]; American [*2]Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 35 NY3d 64, 70). "Arbitrators exceed their power only when they issue an award that 'violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power'" (Matter of County of Nassau v Nassau County Investigators Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 203 AD3d 824, 826, quoting American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 35 NY3d at 70).

"An arbitration award is irrational only where there is no evidence whatever to justify the award, or where the award gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties" (Matter of Dedvukaj v Shkreli, 180 AD3d 895, 897). Here, the arbitrator's award was supported by evidence in the record and was not irrational (see Matter of Douglas Elliman of LI, LLC v O'Callaghan, 220 AD3d at 947; Matter of Dedvukaj v Shkreli, 180 AD3d at 897).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Minutello's petition to confirm the arbitration award, and denied JCCM's cross-motion, inter alia, to vacate or modify the award.

The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of JCCM's motion which were to vacate the order dated December 2, 2024, based upon newly discovered evidence pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) and fraud and misconduct in procuring the award pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3). Newly discovered evidence is not a basis upon which an arbitration award may be vacated (see Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v Hanover Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 950, 951; Matter of DiNapoli v Peak Automotive, Inc., 34 AD3d 674, 675). On the other hand, when newly discovered evidence indicates that fraud or misconduct was perpetrated upon the arbitration tribunal, a court may authorize a new hearing under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(i) (see Matter of Accessible Dev. Corp. [Ocean House Ctr.], 4 AD3d 217, 217). Here, JCCM failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was fraud or misconduct in procuring the arbitration award (see generally Matter of Tauber v Gross, 216 AD3d 1066).

CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court