Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward A. KAMINSKY, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Spencer SEGURA, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 13, 2004, which denied the petition to vacate the damages portion of an arbitration award dated August 28, 2003 for arbitrator misconduct in failing to admit certain rebuttal evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Judicial review of an arbitration award is limited, and an award will not be vacated “unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on [the arbitrator's] power” (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984]; see also Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 N.Y.3d 72, 83, 769 N.Y.S.2d 451, 801 N.E.2d 827 [2003] ). Arbitrators need only receive evidence that is “pertinent and material,” and such determination will only be set aside if it deprives a party of a fundamentally fair hearing (DeSilva v. First Union Sec., 249 F.Supp.2d 286, 290 [S.D.N.Y.2003] ). Petitioners failed to meet their burden of showing, with clear and convincing proof, that the arbitrators' refusal to hear the rebuttal expert witness constituted misconduct by preventing them from eliciting pertinent and material testimony in this hearing which consumed 24 days over a 15-month period (see Matter of Wiener Furniture Co. [Kingston City Schools Consol.], 90 A.D.2d 875, 456 N.Y.S.2d 474 [1982] ). Petitioners could have called this witness during their case in chief (Republic of Croatia v. Trustee of Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement, 203 A.D.2d 167, 169, 610 N.Y.S.2d 263 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 805, 618 N.Y.S.2d 6, 642 N.E.2d 325 [1994] ). Rebuttal testimony cannot be utilized simply to challenge the credibility of another witness, namely, respondent's expert (see Matter of Smith v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 202 A.D.2d 678, 609 N.Y.S.2d 645 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 807, 621 N.Y.S.2d 516, 645 N.E.2d 1216 [1994] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 07, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)