Counsel for Defendant: pro se. The following papers, numbered 1__, were read on this application to/for Confirm Arbitration Notice of Motion/Petition/OSC — Affidavits — Exhibits No(s) 1-2 Answering Affidavits — Exhibits No(s) Replying No(s) DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Esther L. (the Wife) moves, pursuant to CPLR §7150, for an order directing that the arbitration award issued by the Beth Din of America (the Beth Din) dated March **, 2019 (the Arbitration Award) be confirmed; and that a judgment be entered in accordance therewith. Defendant Chaim L. (the Husband) did not file any opposition to the motion. On August **, 2003, prior to their marriage, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement (the Agreement), which set forth, inter alia, their respective financial property rights arising from their marital relationship. It also provided for the arbitration of all disputes arising out of the Agreement by the Beth Din. The parties were married on September **, 2003 and have two minor children, [redacted]. The Wife commenced this divorce action in ** 2016. Pursuant to an order dated March **, 2017, this court granted a prior application by the Wife compelling the Husband to arbitrate before the Beth Din, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. After a hearing on June **, 2017, the Beth Din issued an Interim Psak Din on June **, 2018 (the Interim Order), directing, inter alia, that the Husband promptly give a Get to the Wife. Subsequent to the issuance of the Interim Order, the parties appeared before the Beth Din on November **, 2018 for an additional hearing session. The Beth Din issued the Arbitration Award, which reflects that no Get had been arranged. It also provides, with respect to the parties’ property, that the Husband “is entitled to keep his 401 (k) account and IRA, in addition to a payment from [the] Wife in the amount of $135, 000″ (the Wife’s exhibit C, the Arbitration Award at 2); and that “each party may retain personal property currently in their possession” (id.). With respect to spousal support, it provides, as follows: “Pursuant to the Agreement, Wife is entitled to support at the rate of $150 per day, adjusted annually for inflation, from the date Husband and Wife no longer share a marital residence until their marriage is dissolved as a matter of Jewish law. As adjusted, this entitles Wife to an amount equal to $204.89 beginning February **, 2018 until a Get is arranged. Accordingly, Husband shall pay to Wife the amount of $83,390.23 in accrued support (the ‘Accrued Support’), and beginning as of the date following the issue of this decision, Husband shall pay support to Wife in the amount of $204.80 per day, so long as they remain married under Jewish Law (the ‘Continuing Support’)” (id.). With respect to the Get, the Arbitration Award states that: “If Husband fails to give a Get by April 8, 2019, Wife may utilize all legal means to obtain the Get and Husband shall be subject to the distancing measures known as harchakot de-Rabbeinu Tam…Because of a concern about Husband’s compliance with the Continuing Support obligation, Wife is ordered to place the amount of $51,609.77 in escrow with the Beth Din pending the arrangement of a Get. Until a Get is arranged, Wife shall be entitled to receive monthly payments of the Continuing Support from the amount held in escrow. Upon arrangement of a Get, Husband shall be entitled to the remaining funds in escrow. If the escrow is depleted prior to the arrangement of a Get, Husband shall pay the Continuing Support to Wife on a monthly basis. This support obligation under Jewish law is independent of any civil or state law obligations for spousal support, or any civil or state law imposed order for support” (id. at 3). Subsequent to the issuance of the Arbitration Award, the Wife submitted an application for modification, akin to an appeal, under the rules and procedures of the Beth Din. In a decision issued on June **, 2019, the Wife’s application was denied, and the decision of the Beth Din in the Arbitration Award was upheld (Denial of Modification) (the Wife’s exhibit D, Denial of Modification). The Wife now moves to confirm the Arbitration Award pursuant to CPLR 7510. “Judicial review of an arbitration award is extremely limited.” Zar v. Yaghoobzar, 161 AD3d 815, 817 [2d Dept 2018]. CPLR 7510 provides that “[t]he court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him, unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511″ (CPLR 7510; Belli v. Matthew Bender & Co., 24 AD2d 72, 72 [1st Dept 1965]). The Wife filed this application on June **, 2019, clearly within the one-year deadline of the final resolution of the arbitration before the Beth Din (Matter of Warner-Chappell Music, Inc (Aberbach de Mexico), 224 AD2d 301, 302 [1st Dept 1996]). Thus, her application is timely. “There can be little doubt that a duly executed antenuptial agreement, by which the parties agree in advance of the marriage to the resolution of disputes that may arise after its termination, is valid and enforceable” (Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 NY2d 108, 114 [1983]). “Similarly, an agreement to refer a matter concerning marriage to arbitration suffers no inherent invalidity” (id.), including an agreement requiring a husband to appear before the Beth Din (id.). Further, it is undisputed that the Husband “freely submitted [himself] to the jurisdiction of the [Beth Din] and that this was a manifestation of [him] having voluntarily undertaken obedience to the religious law which such tribunals interpret and enforce” (Greenberg v. Greenberg, 238 AD2d 420, 421 [2d Dept 1997]; see also Zar v. Yaghoobzar, 161 AD3d at 817). Additionally, since the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes arising under the Agreement before the Beth Din, including all issues relating to a Get (the Agreement at 15), “it is for the arbitrators to analyze the agreement, decide what it means and enforce it according to the rules which they consider appropriate under the circumstances” (Grien v. Grien, 51 AD2d 543, 543 [2d Dept 1976]). Further, where there is a contractual agreement to cooperate with a religious divorce, or, as in the instant case, a Get, courts have routinely enforced the agreement by imposing a term of imprisonment, financial sanctions and/or withholding economic relief when a party has not complied with same (see Fischer v. Fischer, 237 AD2d 559, 560 [2d Dept 1997]; Kaplinsky v. Kaplinsky, 198 AD2d 212, [2d Dept 1993]; Pinto v. Pinto, 260 AD2d 622, 622 [2d Dept 1999]). ‘In short, the relief sought by plaintiff in this action is simply to compel defendant to perform a secular obligation to which he contractually bound himself. In this regard, no doctrinal issue need be passed upon, no implementation of a religious duty is contemplated, and no interference with religious authority will result. Certainly nothing the Beth Din can do would in any way affect the civil divorce. To the extent that an enforceable promise can be found by the application of neutral principles of contract law, plaintiff will have demonstrated entitlement to the relief sought” (Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 NY 2d at 115). See also Schwartz v. Schwartz, 79 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2d Dept 2010] (reversing trial court’s denial of contempt against husband who did not comply with written stipulation to appear before a Beth Din to grant wife a Get, citing Avitzur). As previously noted, the Agreement provided for the arbitration before the Beth Din of all disputes arising thereunder, which included equitable distribution, maintenance and all issues relating to a Get. Thus, Beth Din’s directive that defendant promptly give plaintiff a Get, and its awards of equitable distribution of the parties’ property, accrued support of $83,390.23 and continuing support of $204.89 per day commencing on February **, 2018 and continuing until a Get is obtained, are within its authority (see id.). Where there is a contractual agreement to cooperate with a religious divorce, courts have routinely enforced the agreement, including by imposing financial sanctions and or withholding economic relief in the event of a party’s non-cooperation with same. A.W. v. I.N., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 20000, 2020 WL 36024, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County Jan. 2, 2020) (citing Fischer v. Fischer, 237 AD2d 559 [2d Dept 1997]; Kaplinsky v. Kaplinsky, 198 AD2d 212 [2d Dept 1993]; Waxstein v. Waxstein, 90 Misc. 2d 784, 395 [Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 1976], aff’d 57 AD2d 863 [2d Dept 1977]). Since defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s request, and the Arbitration Award does not violate a strong public policy, is not irrational and does not exceed the arbitrators’ authority, plaintiff’s application to confirm the Arbitration Award is granted (see Matter of Granet & Assoc., Inc. v. Thom Filicia, Inc., 159 AD3d 573, 573 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Goldberg v. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, 52 AD3d 392, 392 [1st Dept 2008]). The court notes that it may not and does not take any position concerning that branch of the arbitral award that addresses “distancing” measures in accordance with Jewish law, but does confirm all of the financial provisions of the Arbitration Award. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to confirm the Arbitration Award is granted to the extent set forth above; and it is further ORDERED that any relief not specifically granted is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: March/4/2020
