In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which denied the appellants’ motion tо vacate the award and granted the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant homeowners entered into a cоntract with the petitioner contractor pursuant to which the contractor agreed to perform significant renovations of the appellants’ home for
Well into the construction process, and aftеr the appellants allegedly ordered more than $100,000 in additional work, the parties became embroiled in а dispute over payment of approximately $30,000 the contractor claimed was owed. The contraсtor filed an arbitration demand and the appellants moved for a stay of arbitration, contending that the contractor failed to provide notice of certain rescissionary rights required by the Door to Door Sales Protection Act (Personal Property Law art 10-A; see Community Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v McClammy,
The matter thus proceeded to arbitration. The record contains virtually no documentation of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator, a member of the American Arbitration Association Construction Arbitration Tribunal, rendered an award in favor of the contractor in the total sum of $36,980.34, including interest.
The contractor moved to confirm the award. In opposition, the appеllants “cross-moved” [sic] to vacate the award. The thrust of their argument was that the contract did not cover renovations to the basement that were the subject of the payment dispute. As such, the appellants reasoned, this extra-contractual dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause within the contract, and thus the arbitrator exceeded his authority in making the award. Alternatively, the appellants asserted that the award violated public policy. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, denied the motion to vacate, and granted the petition to confirm the award. We affirm.
Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), an arbitration award may be vacated on application of a party who participated in the arbitration only if the rights of that party were prejudiсed by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award, (2) partiality of a supposedly neutral arbitrator, (3) the arbitrator exceeding his powers so that no final and definite award was made, or (4) failure to follow proсedures provided by CPLR
The arbitrator could rationally find that the contractor’s claims for compensation due for the renovation of the apрellants’ basement related to or arose from the contract and that the dispute is clearly arbitrable (see ADC Constr. v Empire City Subway Co.,
The appellants offered no evidence establishing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding the contractor payment for extra-contractual work. Resolving disputes arising under the parties’ contract сlearly was a matter within the arbitrator’s authority. Rather, the true gravamen of the appellants’ complaint is thаt the arbitrator made a factual error in his ruling. However, it is well settled that “[a]n arbitration award is not subject to judicial review for errors of law or of fact” (Matter of Windsor Metal Fabrications v Vescom Sys.,
Nor did the appellants show that the arbitration award was violative of public policy. “An arbitrator’s аward will not be vacated unless it is clearly violative of some strong public policy, is totally irrational, or manifеstly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power . . . An award is irrational if therе is no proof whatever to justify the award . . . or the award gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” (Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn.,
However, we reject the contractor’s contention that the appeal is frivolous. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.