ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Oct 24, 2025

A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award is required to satisfy a "high burden" in order to prevail

Supreme Court granted Petitioner law firm's motion to confirm an arbitration award granting it $297,150.91 in unpaid legal fees, and denied the Respondents' motion to vacate the arbitration award. 

Citing CPLR 7511[b][1] and Matter of D.P.I. Imports, Inc v Q4 Designs, LLC, 232 AD3d 512, leave to appeal denied, 43 NY3d 903, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that the Respondents failed to meet the "high burden" placed on it in order to have a court grant its motion to vacate the arbitration award at issue.

The decision notes that the record "does not show that the arbitrator engaged in fraud, corruption or misconduct by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence, or that he manifestly disregarded the law in finding that [Respondents]  breached the retainer agreement and were otherwise liable for the unpaid legal fees based on the equitable theories of recovery."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "A court will not set aside an arbitrator's award for errors of law or fact unless the award is so irrational as to require vacatur, which is not the case here."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.



NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com