| Matter of Grossman v Ilowitz |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03124 [72 AD3d 821] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Raphael Grossman et al.,Appellants, v Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz et al., Respondents, v Raphael Grossman et al., Appellants.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Israel Vider, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
In related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award datedAugust 4, 2005, which, inter alia, awarded Israel Grossman the sum of $500,000 payable byYaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz and enjoined Israel Grossman from engaging incertain activities against Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz (proceeding No. 1), andto confirm an arbitration award dated May 29, 2007, which, upon a finding that Israel Grossmanviolated the injunction, vacated the arbitration award in the sum of $500,000 (proceeding No. 2),Raphael Grossman and Israel Grossman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Bunyan, J.), dated May 22, 2008, which (1) granted that branch of the motion ofYaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz which was to vacate an order entered May 24,2006, confirming the arbitration award dated August 4, 2005, and a judgment entered June 7,2006, thereon, and denied the appellants' motion to compel compliance with that order andjudgment, and (2) granted the motion of Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz toconfirm the arbitration award dated May 29, 2007, and denied the appellants' motion to vacatethat arbitration award.
Ordered that the order dated May 22, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellants contend that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in granting injunctive reliefin the award dated August 4, 2005, and in enforcing that injunction in the subsequent awarddated May 29, 2007, which forfeited their monetary award based upon the violation of thatinjunction. The Court of Appeals has ruled that "[s]uch an excess of power occurs only wherethe arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specificallyenumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers' Union of Am.,Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]). "[T]he public policy exception to anarbitrator's power to resolve disputes is [*2]extremely narrow,"and applies if the law prohibits determination of the matter by arbitration, or where the awardviolates well-settled constitutional, statutory or common law of the State (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72,80 [2003]).
An arbitration award may grant injunctive relief (see Matter of Staklinski [Pyramid Elec.Co.], 6 NY2d 159 [1959]; Matter of Ruppert [Egelhofer], 3 NY2d 576 [1958];Matter of Board of Educ. of Dover Union Free School Dist. v Dover-Wingdale Teachers'Assn., 95 AD2d 497, 502 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 913 [1984]; Matter of Board ofEduc. of Westmoreland Cent. School Dist. [Westmoreland Teachers Assn.], 58 AD2d 228[1977]). Further, the granting of such relief in this case was not beyond the scope of the broadarbitration agreement signed by the parties.
Once the arbitrators correctly vacated the monetary award, the Supreme Court properlyvacated the order and judgment confirming that monetary award pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (5)(see Dupkanicova v James, 17AD3d 627 [2005]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Miller, Balkin andChambers, JJ., concur.