| Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00309 [91 AD3d 532] |
| Jnury 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Appellant, v New York Instituteof Technology, Respondent. |
—[*1] Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York (Douglas P. Catalano of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (O. PeterSherwood, J.), entered June 3, 2011 and reentered July 8, 2011, which, after the court haddeclined to sign petitioner's order to show cause, denied the motion and ordered that judgment beentered against petitioner, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealablepaper.
There is no right of appeal from an order that does not determine a motion on notice (CPLR5701 [a] [2]; see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]), including an order decliningto sign an order to show cause (seeNaval v American Arbitration Assn., 83 AD3d 423 [2011]) and a judgment enteredupon such an order (seeHladun-Goldmann v Rentsch Assoc., 8 AD3d 73 [2004]). In light of the evident lack ofmerit to the appeal, we decline to grant leave to appeal.
Petitioner's assertion that disputes as to performance of the remedy provisions of thearbitration award should be determined by the arbitrator is without merit. Since a final arbitrationaward has been rendered finally resolving the dispute between the parties, and the award hasbeen judicially confirmed (79 AD3d 418 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 712 [2011]), ajudgment enforceable by the courts has been entered (see CPLR 7514), and the arbitratoris functus officio, without power to amend or modify the final award (see Matter ofHanover Ins. [*2]Co. v American Intl. Underwriters Ins. Co.,266 AD2d 545 [1999]). In any event, petitioner failed to identify any provision of the final awardthat was violated by respondent. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwickand Freedman, JJ.