TITAN REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC v. HIMROD DEVELOPMENT LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated July 28, 2023, Himrod Development, LLC, appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Francis Ricigliano, J.), dated July 11, 2024, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered July 17, 2024.  The order granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied the cross-motion of Himrod Development, LLC, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award.  The judgment, upon the order, is in favor of the petitioner and against Himrod Development, LLC, in the total sum of $524,769.26.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the proceeding (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647).  The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The petitioner, Titan Realty & Construction, LLC (hereinafter Titan), commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award that was based on a contract between Titan and Himrod Develoment, LLC (hereinafter Himrod), for the construction of a building.  Himrod opposed the petition and cross-moved, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award.  The Supreme Court granted the petition and denied Himrod's cross-motion.  A judgment was then entered in favor of Titan and against Himrod in the total sum of $524,769.26.  Himrod appeals.

“[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201;  see Matter of Briscoe Protective, LLC v. North Fork Surgery Ctr., LLC, 215 A.D.3d 956, 957, 188 N.Y.S.3d 113).  In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, an arbitration award may be vacated if it “violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” (Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 214 A.D.3d 735, 736, 186 N.Y.S.3d 39 [internal quotation marks omitted]), or “where ‘it exhibits a manifest disregard of law’ ” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d at 480, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201).  “ ‘An award is irrational only where there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” (Matter of J–K Apparel Sales Co., Inc. v. Esposito, 189 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 133 N.Y.S.3d 892, quoting Matter of Kirchhoff–Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Mechtronics Corp., 144 A.D.3d 682, 683, 41 N.Y.S.3d 235).  “To ․ vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law, a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d at 481, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Panos v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 204 A.D.3d 1016, 1018, 167 N.Y.S.3d 539).  However, “ ‘[a]n arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be’ ” (Matter of Panos v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 204 A.D.3d at 1018, 167 N.Y.S.3d 539, quoting Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v. Meltzer, 58 A.D.3d 729, 730, 873 N.Y.S.2d 315).  “The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Panos v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 204 A.D.3d at 1018, 167 N.Y.S.3d 539).

Here, Himrod failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the grounds that it was irrational or exhibited a manifest disregard of the law (see Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 214 A.D.3d at 737, 186 N.Y.S.3d 39;  Matter of Panos v. Mid Hudson Med. Group, P.C., 204 A.D.3d at 1019, 167 N.Y.S.3d 539).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied Himrod's cross-motion, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.