IN RE: Andrew GLUCK (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered February 15, 2023, awarding petitioner the total amount of $1,705,118.04, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered December 23, 2022, which, inter alia, granted the petition to confirm the final arbitration award, dated September 30, 2022 granting attorneys' fees, and denied the cross-petition to vacate the final award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  Appeal from aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Here, the arbitrator identified and applied the correct factors for determining attorneys' fees, and the motion court thus properly declined to substitute its view of “reasonableness” for that of the arbitrator (Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 629–630, 415 N.Y.S.2d 974, 389 N.E.2d 456 [1979]).

For the same reason, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, which would require that that the arbitrator intentionally disregard the relevant factors (see Matter of Daesang Corp. v. NutraSweet Co., 167 A.D.3d 1, 15–16, 85 N.Y.S.3d 6 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 915, 2019 WL 690307 [2019]).  Finally, because the arbitrator applied well-established criteria for determining attorneys' fees and did not manifestly disregard the law, no public policy grounds for vacatur are at issue.