| Matter of DeRaffele Mfg. Co., Inc. v Kaloakas Mgt. Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01754 [48 AD3d 807] |
| February 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of DeRaffele Manufacturing Co., Inc.,Respondent, v Kaloakas Management Corp. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Anthony J. Mavronicolas, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, KaloakasManagement Corp. and Dimitrios Tsafatinos appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court,Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, upon an order of the samecourt entered March 23, 2005, granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of thepetitioner and against them in the principal sum of $1,386,016, and (2) an order of the same courtentered July 24, 2006, which denied their motion for leave to renew. The notice of appeal fromthe order entered March 23, 2005, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (seeCPLR 5512 [a]).
Ordered that the judgment and the order entered July 24, 2006, are affirmed, with one bill ofcosts.
The parties entered into a contract calling for the petitioner, DeRaffele Manufacturing Co.,Inc., to redesign, renovate, and reconstruct a diner owned by the respondents, KaloakasManagement Corp. and Dimitrios Tsafatinos. Thereafter, certain disputes arose between theparties, primarily with respect to DeRaffele's performance and the respondents' paymentobligations. Pursuant to an arbitration agreement entered into by the parties, the dispute wassubmitted to arbitration.
The arbitrators issued an award finding, inter alia, that the parties' contract did not include acompletion date, the respondents failed to prove the petitioner was solely responsible for delays,[*2]the contract assigned the responsibility of securing a buildingpermit to the respondents, the work performed by the petitioner was in general conformance withacceptable standards of workmanship and quality, and the respondents failed to prove fraud orfailure of consideration. The arbitrators awarded the petitioner the principal sum of $1,471,016and awarded the respondents the principal sum of $85,000 on their counterclaim, for a netprincipal sum to the petitioner of $1,386,016.
In December 2004 the petitioner commenced this proceeding to confirm the award. Therespondents answered and asserted various grounds for modifying or vacating the award, none ofwhich referenced the Federal Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, holdingthat the respondents failed to demonstrate any of the grounds for vacatur or modification of theaward contained in CPLR 7511 (c).
The respondents moved, pursuant to CPLR 2221, for leave to renew, asserting that the awardhad to be reviewed under the Federal Arbitration Act standard requiring an arbitration award tobe set aside if it demonstrates a "manifest disregard of the law." The Supreme Court denied themotion for leave to renew.
"An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, isirrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrators' power. Anaward made by an arbitration panel will not be vacated for errors of law or fact committed by thearbitrators unless the award exhibits a manifest disregard of the law" (Matter of WBP Cent.Assoc., LLC v Deco Constr. Corp., 44 AD3d 781 [2007] [citations omitted]). Furthermore,"[c]ourts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings . . . [and] [a] court cannotexamine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitratorsimply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one. Indeed, even incircumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role ofoverseers to conform the award to their sense of justice" (Matter of New York StateCorrectional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326[1999]).
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the arbitrators did not exceed their authority, theaward was neither irrational nor violative of public policy, and, as noted, the award did notexhibit a manifest disregard of the law (see Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d816 [2006]; Matter of MacDonald v City of New Rochelle, 13 AD3d 537 [2004]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and confirmed the arbitrationaward.
The Supreme Court also properly denied the motion for leave to renew. A motion for leave torenew may be granted upon, inter alia, a showing there has been a change in the law that wouldchange the prior determination (see 515 Ave. I Corp. v 515 Ave. I Tenants Corp., 44AD3d 707 [2007]). The respondents failed to make the requisite showing that any alleged changeof the law would have altered the prior determination, as the errors they claimed the arbitratorsmade would not have established manifest disregard of the law. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Fisher andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.