IN RE: HELP ME SEE (2018)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 2, 2016, which granted petitioner's application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent's cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award was properly confirmed.  Contrary to respondent's contention, the award did not improperly redirect specific charitable donations based on a determination of donor intent.  Rather, it awarded expectation damages sufficient to restore petitioner to the position it would have been in had respondent performed as promised under the parties' agreement (see Emposimato v. CIFC Acquisition Corp., 89 A.D.3d 418, 421, 932 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1st Dept. 2011] ).  As such, New York's public policy protecting donor intent was not implicated (see Not–For–Profit Corporation Law §§ 513[b];  555[b], [e];  Alco Gravure, Inc. v. Knapp Found., 64 N.Y.2d 458, 467–468, 490 N.Y.S.2d 116, 479 N.E.2d 752 [1985];  Matter of Friends for Long Island's Heritage, 80 A.D.3d 223, 230–231, 235, 911 N.Y.S.2d 412 [2d Dept. 2010] ).

Since the damages awarded were compensatory in nature, the award also did not violate New York law holding that arbitrators do not have authority to award punitive damages (see Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354, 356, 386 N.Y.S.2d 831, 353 N.E.2d 793 [1976] ), assuming that the arbitration was governed by New York law.

Whether or not respondent will be able to pay the award without resort to restricted-purpose funds is irrelevant (see Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v. Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 46 N.Y.2d 727, 729, 413 N.Y.S.2d 370, 385 N.E.2d 1297 [1978] ).  The award did not designate any particular source from which the damages had to be paid.  The issue of what funds may be used may be raised in the bankruptcy court (Matter of Wonderwork, Inc., Index No. 16–13607 [Bankr S.D.N.Y.] ).

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.