Catlin Syndicate 2003 v. Traditional Air Conditioning, Inc., 2:17-cv-02406

A-H Construction d/b/a Visible Construction (A-H/Visible) contracted with Anthony’s Coal Fired Pizza (ACFP) to manage construction of a restaurant; that contract contained an arbitration clause.
Thomas Williams Construction (TWC) served as general contractor and subcontracted HVAC work (including oven exhaust) to Traditional Air Conditioning (Traditional); the TWC–Traditional contract contained no arbitration clause.
On January 26, 2015 a fire near the pizza oven/vent caused major damage; insurer Catlin paid $840,000 and was subrogated to ACFP’s rights.
Catlin sued A-H/Visible, TWC, and Traditional for negligence, breach of contract and warranty; Judge Bianco compelled arbitration of Catlin’s claims against A-H/Visible and stayed the rest of the action.
An arbitrator (between Catlin and A-H/Visible only) found Traditional’s faulty installation caused the fire and, relying on an exculpatory clause in Section 9.3 of the Construction Contract, concluded A-H/Visible was not liable; the arbitrator denied Catlin’s claims.
Post-award, Catlin moved to lift the stay and dismiss its claims against A-H/Visible; A-H/Visible moved to confirm the award and sought dismissal of cross-claims by TWC and Traditional. The court confirmed the award, lifted the stay, dismissed Catlin’s claims against A-H/Visible with prejudice, and denied A-H/Visible’s motion to dismiss the cross-claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to confirm the arbitration award and dismiss Catlin’s claims vs A‑H/Visible	Award is binding and preclusive; court should dismiss claims against A‑H/Visible	Award is final and should be enforced	Court confirmed the award; Catlin’s claims vs A‑H/Visible dismissed with prejudice
Whether to lift the stay of the remaining claims	Stay should be lifted because arbitration concluded	N/A	Stay lifted so claims vs Traditional and TWC may proceed
Whether the arbitration award collaterally estops TWC and Traditional from pursuing contribution/indemnity against A‑H/Visible	Award resolves A‑H/Visible’s liability and thus bars cross-claims by collateral estoppel	Cross‑claimants were not parties to arbitration and had no full and fair opportunity to litigate	Collateral estoppel did not apply; cross-claims were not dismissed
Whether N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 15-108 treats the arbitration award as a release that eliminates contribution claims	Arbitration award functions as a release; § 15-108 bars contribution claims	An arbitration award is not a settlement release; statutory requirements for a release (monetary consideration, termination of dispute, pre-judgment) are unmet	§ 15-108 does not apply; A‑H/Visible’s motion to dismiss cross-claims under § 15-108 denied

Defuerco Int'l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 2003) (courts must accord great deference to arbitrators' decisions)
D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (confirmation is a summary proceeding; award should be confirmed absent vacatur/modification grounds)
Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (only a ‘‘barely colorable’’ justification is needed to confirm an award)
In re Hyman, 502 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2007) (collateral estoppel under New York law requires identical issue decided and a full and fair opportunity to litigate)
Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of collateral estoppel explained)
Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. Gen. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 769 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing Rule 54(b) standards for partial final judgment)
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980) (factors for entering Rule 54(b) judgments)
Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (discussing N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 15-108's purpose to encourage settlements)
Apple v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 829 F.2d 326 (2d Cir. 1987) (§ 15-108 seeks to ensure nonsettling defendants do not bear more than their equitable share)