IN RE: GASSMAN BAIAMONTE GRUNER (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated November 9, 2016, Daryl Nadine Katz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jack L. Libert, J.), entered February 10, 2017.  The order granted the petition to confirm the award and denied the cross motion of Daryl Nadine Katz to vacate the award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In February 2015, Daryl Nadine Katz retained the petitioner to represent her in matrimonial and Family Court matters.  On May 10, 2016, Katz terminated the representation, and on June 15, 2016, she filed a request for fee arbitration.  On November 9, 2016, a panel of three arbitrators awarded the petitioner $45,156.02 for unpaid fees.

By a notice of petition dated December 9, 2016, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm the arbitration award.  Katz cross-moved to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(i) and (iv).  By order entered February 10, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the petition to confirm the award and denied Katz's cross motion.  Katz appeals.

“[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited․  An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 A.D.3d 878, 955 N.Y.S.2d 100).

An arbitration award shall be vacated if the court determines that a party's rights were prejudiced by “corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award” (CPLR 7511[b][1][i];  see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 A.D.3d at 879, 955 N.Y.S.2d 100).  “The party seeking to vacate the arbitration award has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator committed misconduct” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 A.D.3d at 879, 955 N.Y.S.2d 100).

The decision as to whether to grant an adjournment is within the sound discretion of the arbitrator, and misconduct only occurs when the arbitrator abuses that discretion (see Matter of M.T.M. Beverages Corp. v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 262 A.D.2d 414, 689 N.Y.S.2d 660;  Matter of Omega Contr. v. Maropakis Contr., 160 A.D.2d 942, 554 N.Y.S.2d 664).  There may be an abuse of discretion when the refusal to grant an adjournment results in the foreclosure of the presentation of material, pertinent evidence (see Matter of Bevona [Superior Maintenance Co.], 204 A.D.2d 136, 139, 611 N.Y.S.2d 193;  Omega Contr. v. Maropakis Contr., 160 A.D.2d 942, 554 N.Y.S.2d 664;  cf. Matter of Trivino v. Allcity Ins. Co., 227 A.D.2d 638, 638, 643 N.Y.S.2d 394).

An arbitration award shall be vacated if the court determines that a party's rights were prejudiced by the “failure to follow the procedure of [CPLR art. 75], unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iv] ).  The parties to an arbitration are “entitled to be heard, to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses” and to be represented by counsel (CPLR 7506[c], [d] ).

Here, Katz failed to meet her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that her rights were prejudiced by misconduct (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. GEICO [Govt. Empls. Ins. Co.], 100 A.D.3d at 879, 955 N.Y.S.2d 100).  Further, the arbitrators' denial of Katz's request for an adjournment did not constitute either an abuse of discretion or misconduct sufficient to warrant vacatur of the award (see Matter of M.T.M. Beverages Corp. v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 262 A.D.2d 414, 689 N.Y.S.2d 660).  The record does not indicate that the denial of Katz's request for an adjournment foreclosed her ability to present relevant evidence (see id.;  Matter of Trivino v. Allcity Ins. Co., 227 A.D.2d at 638, 643 N.Y.S.2d 394), or otherwise deprived her of the rights set forth in CPLR 7506(c) and (d) (cf. Nastasi v. Artenberg, 130 A.D.2d 469, 515 N.Y.S.2d 52;  International Components Corp. v. Klaiber, 59 A.D.2d 853, 399 N.Y.S.2d 132).  Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the petition to confirm the arbitration award and to deny Katz's cross motion to vacate the award.

CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.