IN RE: SOCIAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (2008)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 16, 2007, granting petitioner's motion to annul an arbitrator's award and denying respondents' cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, petitioner's motion denied and respondents' cross motion granted.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the arbitrator, who was not bound by rules of evidence (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984] ), did not exceed her power (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] ) by admitting into evidence a memorandum from the director of the facility where petitioner was employed to a fellow employee about the status of the latter's complaint about petitioner, unrelated to the instant arbitration.   Petitioner argues that the arbitrator violated a provision of the collective bargaining agreement.   However, the limitation contained in that provision is not specifically related to the power of the arbitrator (see Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Chesley, 7 A.D.3d 368, 373, 777 N.Y.S.2d 82 [2004];  Pharma Consult, Inc. v. Nutrition Tech. LLC, 25 A.D.3d 421, 809 N.Y.S.2d 9 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 713, 816 N.Y.S.2d 748, 849 N.E.2d 971 [2006] ).   Moreover, even where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, “courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 326, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 [1999] ).   Nor was the objected-to memorandum so prejudicial that any mistake in accepting it was “so gross or palpable as to establish fraud or misconduct” (Korein v. Rabin, 29 A.D.2d 351, 356, 287 N.Y.S.2d 975 [1968];  CPLR 7511[b][1][i] ).