Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a judgment denying a petition to vacate an arbitration award, dismissing the proceeding, and confirming the award. The court held that the petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator acted irrationally, exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on authority, or was partial under CPLR article 75.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the arbitration award should be vacated as irrational under CPLR 7511(b)(1).
- Whether the arbitrator exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on his or her power under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii).
- Whether the award should be vacated because the petitioner's rights were prejudiced by arbitrator partiality under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(ii).
Holdings
- The petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational; the arbitrator's determination was supported by evidence in the record.
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power, and the award therefore was not subject to vacatur on that basis.
- The petitioner did not establish a basis for vacating the award based on arbitrator partiality, and his remaining contentions were without merit.
Key quotations
“A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award on one or more grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)(1) bears a heavy burden, and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence”
“A court may vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his [or her] powers' within the meaning of CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power”
“Under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(ii), an arbitration award may be vacated if the rights of a party were prejudiced by the partiality of the arbitrator”
Factual background
Nader I. Soliman was employed as a Senior Civil Engineer by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. He was charged with misconduct, including accessing unauthorized websites for non-County use and viewing sexually explicit material during working hours. Following consensual arbitration, the arbitrator found him guilty and imposed termination; the court found the determination supported by the record and not irrational.
Procedural history
The petitioner, a Senior Civil Engineer employed by Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was charged with misconduct and proceeded to consensual arbitration. The arbitrator found him guilty and imposed termination. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the petition to vacate, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award; the petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed.