section 7511(c) error subject to vacatur in New York

2021The arbitrator's determination to impose 3% pre-award interest was neither a computational error subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511(c)(1) nor in excess of the arbitrator's authority under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) ( see Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.] , 10 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 709 [2005]).

2021The arbitrator's determination to impose 3% pre-award interest was neither a computational error subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511(c)(1) nor in excess of the arbitrator's authority under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) ( see Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.] , 10 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 709 [2005]).

2021The arbitrator's determination to impose 3% pre-award interest was neither a computational error subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511(c)(1) nor in excess of the arbitrator's authority under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) ( see Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.] , 10 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 709 [2005]).

2021The arbitrator's determination to impose 3% pre-award interest was neither a computational error subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511(c)(1) nor in excess of the arbitrator's authority under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) ( see Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.] , 10 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 709 [2005]).

2013The former renders an award not final and definite, and thus subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii); the latter amounts to a mere error of fact or law not judicially reviewable’ ” (Matter of Scott v Bridge Chrysler Plymouth, 214 AD2d 675, 676-677 [2d Dept 1995], quoting Guetta, 123 AD2d at 45 ).

1995In Matter of Guetta (Raxon Fabrics Corp.) ( 123 AD2d 40, 45 ), the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that: "a distinction must be drawn between an arbitrator’s failure, on the one hand, to dispose of the controversy submitted * * * and his failure, on the other, to consider all of the issues of fact and law that a court would have to consider in order to properly dispose of the same controversy * * * The former renders an award not final and definite, and thus subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii); the latter amounts to a mere error of fact or law not judicially reviewable

2013Cases where an arbitration award has been deemed indefinite have involved awards clearly unresponsive to the disputes submitted to the arbitrators (see Matter of Scott v Bridge Chrysler Plymouth, 214 AD2d 675 [1995] [second arbitrator mistakenly thought first had awarded damages; thus it did not dispose of the controversy submitted to it — the computation of damages]; Matter of Teamsters Local Union 693 [Coverall Serv. & Supply Co.], 84 AD2d 609 [3d Dept 1981] [award indefinite because entirely unresponsive to question of what a weekly salary for a worker who works four days a week should be])

2007Specifically, they failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator was biased, much less that they sustained prejudice attributable to any such bias (see Artists & Craftsmen Bldrs. v Schapiro, 232 AD2d 265 [1996]).

2002Moreover, in New York there is a strong public policy favoring arbitration, consequently an award is not subject to vacatur “unless the court concludes that it is totally irrational or violative of a strong public policy” and thus in excess of the arbitrator’s powers (Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146,155 ; Maross Constr. v Central N.Y.

2001Likewise, the court in Rymer v Leider (supra) stated that claimant’s dissatisfaction with the amount of the arbitrator’s award is not a basis for vacatur under CPLR 7511.

1988If the arbitrators do in fact exceed their authority and render an improper award, the award will be subject to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (see, Matter of Siegel, 40 NY2d 687 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 ).

1988Regarding the petitioner’s objection to the arbitrators’ alleged squandering of time in order to secure a fee for a second day of hearings, we note that this is not a proper ground for disqualification (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [2]; Rabinowitz v Olewski, 100 AD2d 539 ).

1985Faculty Fedn. v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 855, 857 ) or otherwise subject to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b), and therefore should have been confirmed without modification.

1977The fact that appellant’s demand for relief in each case might, if adopted by the arbitrator, lead to an award arguably subject to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 7511 on the ground that he exceeded his power or the award contravened public policy, does not warrant a stay of arbitration (see Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 54 AD2d 984 ).

1976The general principle that, unless specifically limited by plain and express terms of the submission, an arbitrator is empowered to grant any relief reasonably fitting and necessary to a final determination of the matter submitted to him, including equitable and legal relief (Matter of British Overseas Airways Corp. v International Assn, of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 32 NY2d 823 , affd on dissenting opn at 39 AD2d 900, 901 ), is also readily acknowledged.

1976The general principle that, unless specifically limited by plain and express terms of the submission, an arbitrator is empowered to grant any relief reasonably fitting and necessary to a final determination of the matter submitted to him, including equitable and legal relief (Matter of British Overseas Airways Corp. v International Assn, of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 32 NY2d 823 , affd on dissenting opn at 39 AD2d 900, 901 ), is also readily acknowledged.