60 A.D.3d 1460
N.Y. App. Div.
2009

In the Matter of Arbitration Between ROBERT E. PURCELL, Appellant, and MARJAMA & BILINSKI, Formerly Known as WALL, MARJAMA & BILINSKI, LLP, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York

2009

875 NYS2d 736

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered April 14, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order and judgment, inter alia, granted the motion of respondent to confirm the arbitration award and the supplemental arbitration award.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the fourth ordering and decretal paragraph and by granting claimant interest on the arbitration award and the supplemental arbitration award at the rate of 9% per annum commencing October 25, 2007 and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, a former partner in respondent law firm, sought arbitration with respect to his entitlement to certain fees under his partnership agreement with respondent. The arbitrator initially conducted a hearing and thereafter issued an award to claimant on September 25, 2007. That award left one issue unresolved, however, and, following a further hearing conducted by telephone, the arbitrator issued a supplemental award to claimant on October 25, 2007, addressing the remaining issue. Supreme Court properly granted respondent‘s motion to confirm the arbitrator‘s initial and supplemental awards and denied claimant‘s cross motion to vacate them. Claimant failed to establish any grounds for setting the awards aside (see generally CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). It cannot be said that the arbitrator‘s “interpretation of the agreement ... is violative of a strong public policy, ... is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power” (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). Although the supplemental award of the arbitrator was untimely, claimant suffered no prejudice thereby and thus is not entitled to vacatur of the supplemental award on that ground (see generally Matter of Jones v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 237 AD2d 358 [1997]).