Supreme Court a petition submitted pursuant to CPLR §7510 to confirm an arbitration award and denied the Respondent's cross petition to vacate the award. Respondent appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.
Respondent challenged the confirmation of an arbitration award alleging Petitioner "committed perjury during the arbitration proceeding."
The Appellate Division explained that Respondent's disagreement with the arbitrator's conclusion that Petitioner did not give perjurious testimony or false responses to discovery demands "was not a proper basis for setting aside the arbitration award under CPLR 7511(b)(1) or on grounds of public policy."
As a general rule, courts will not second-guess the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the arbitrator." Respondent, said the court "has not offered sufficient reason why an exception to that rule exists in this proceeding."
Further, the Appellate Division observed that courts "may not substitute their own credibility determinations for those of the arbitrator", citing Matter of Noralez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 187 AD3d 475.
Addressing Respondent's contention that Petitioner submitted "false responses to discovery demands", citing Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, the court opined that "there was at least 'a barely colorable justification' for the arbitrator's conclusion that there was a lack of competent evidence to support [Respondent's] claim of false discovery disclosures".
Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.