Arbitration—Real Estate Investor Dispute—Arbitrators Conduct Was "Troubling in Some Respects"—Award Confirmed Based on Failure To "Timely and Adequately Raise" Conflict and Bias Issues—However, Court Vacated Award of Attorney Fees

The petitioners had approached the respondent regarding the respondent's property. The respondent owned half the property and a partner owned the other half. The parties entered into an agreement for the development of the property and for petitioners to buy out the respondent's partner. The parties disagreed as to the terms of the agreement.

The respondent asserted that the petitioners had agreed to provide "funds and management" for the development. He alleged that the parties obtained a loan to buy out his partner and the petitioners were to "retain[] control of the property in order to develop it." The petitioners asserted that their contract "effected a sale" of the respondent's interest in the property to the petitioners. The petitioners had thereafter sold the respondent's interest in the property, "at par value," while the petitioners "retained their interest."

The petitioners allegedly told the respondent that they sold his ownership interest because they had "losses and expenses." The respondent retained counsel to review the partnership's books and records. The petitioners then hired rabbi "A," who contacted the respondent and suggested submitting the dispute to arbitration. Rabbi "A" "encouraged" the respondent to meet with Rabbi "B," who acts "in the capacity of a Rabbinical Attorney and arbitrator." The respondent met with Rabbi "B," who "insisted that he meet (respondent's) attorney, 'and discuss his claims and strategy.'"