52 Conn. Supp. 295
Conn. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Between Rounds Franchise Corp. and Between Rounds Rocky Hill, LLC filed an application to compel arbitration of a lease dispute against their landlord, EDGR Real Estate, LLC.
- Superior Court ordered arbitration and the matter proceeded to an arbitration panel that ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor.
- Defendant moved to vacate or modify the award, arguing denial of a second postponement caused prejudice and, alternatively, that the award should be paid over ten years rather than lump sum.
- Court denied the vacate and modify requests and granted the motion to confirm the award.
- Timeline: arbitration ordered January 25, 2010; counsel withdrew November 1, 2010; postponement from November 9 to December 1, 2010; second postponement sought November 30, 2010 and denied; December 1 hearing held without defendant; December 16, 2010 award issued in lump sum.
- Award confirmed; notes indicate the decision was affirmed on appeal (Between Rounds Franchise Corp. v. EDGR Real Estate, LLC, 134 Conn.App. 857 (2012)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vacatur for denial of postponement | Between Rounds argues the panel’s denial prejudiced it | EDGR contends there was no pre-decision denial and it was entitled to postponement for adequate preparation | No substantial prejudice proven; vacatur denied |
| Modification to award payable over ten years | Plaintiffs contend ten-year payout was agreed in lease | Defendant argues language requires ten-year installment payments | No evident miscalculation on face of award; modification denied |
| Confirmation of the award | Court should confirm the arbitral award | Vacatur/Modification defenses fail; award should be confirmed | Award confirmed; motion to confirm granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. Smith, 127 Conn.App. 593 (Conn. App. 2011) (judicial review of arbitral awards is narrowly confined)
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (2006) (burden on party challenging award to show invalidating defects)
- Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Komondy, 120 Conn.App. 117 (Conn. App. 2010) (court confirms award unless statutory grounds shown)
- Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646 (1991) (distinguishes voluntary vs compulsory arbitration and modification authority)
- Lawrence v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 29 Conn.App. 484 (Conn. App. 1992) (arbitration context; limitations of review or modification)
- Milford v. Coppola Construction Co., 93 Conn.App. 704 (Conn. App. 2006) (limits on modification for evident miscalculation; de novo review not allowed)