Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC

123 A.D.3d 731, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 2014·No. 2013-09057·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, DCM of NY, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 11, 2013, which, upon an amended order of the same court dated April 2, 2013, inter alia, granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $86,889.88.

*732 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is extremely limited (see Matter of Town of Babylon v Carson, 111 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]). A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). An award is irrational when there is no proof whatever to justify the award (see Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v Barroga-Hayes, 89 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, it failed to show that the arbitration award was irrational. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to vacate the arbitration award, and properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Chambers, J.P, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, DCM of NY, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 11, 2013, which, upon an amended order of the same court dated April 2, 2013, inter alia, granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $86,889.88.

*732 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is extremely limited (see Matter of Town of Babylon v Carson, 111 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]). A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). An award is irrational when there is no proof whatever to justify the award (see Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v Barroga-Hayes, 89 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, it failed to show that the arbitration award was irrational. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to vacate the arbitration award, and properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Chambers, J.P, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC, 123 A.D.3d 731, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

123 A.D.3d 731 (Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related