OPINION AND ORDER Yosef Magid and Jacob Rottenberg (together, “Petitioners”) petition to confirm an arbitration award (the “Award”) entered in their favor and against Respondent Ari Waldman. Waldman opposes the petition and petitions to vacate the Award on the ground that the arbitrator was partial. Waldman also argues that the arbitrator exceeded his power by granting Petitioners attorney’s fees in connection with the litigation in this Court. The arbitrator’s conduct was certainly troubling in some respects, but given the deference this Court owes when reviewing an arbitration award and Waldman’s failure to timely and adequately raise the issues he now raises, the Court concludes that the Award — with the exception of the reward of attorney’s fees — must be confirmed. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, Petitioners’ petition to confirm the Award is granted in part and denied in part, and Waldman’s cross-petition to vacate the Award is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND In or about November 2016, Petitioners approached Waldman regarding his $6.3 million dollar property in Bayonne, New Jersey. See ECF No. 18 (“Waldman Decl.”),
3, 4. At the time, Waldman owned half of the property; his partner in the development venture owned the other half. See id. 3. On February 2, 2017, Petitioners and Waldman entered into an agreement concerning the development, and Petitioners planned to buy out Waldman’s partner. See ECF No. 3 (“Pet. to Confirm”), 10. The parties disagree, however, about the terms of the agreement. According to Waldman, Petitioners agreed to provide “funds and management” for his development. Waldman Decl. 4. He claims that the parties procured a loan to buy out his partner and that they “structured” the investment so “Petitioners retained control of the property in order to develop it.” Id. 5. Petitioners, by contrast, contend that the contract effected a sale of Waldman’s interest in the development to Petitioners. See ECF No. 9-1 (“Magid Aff.”), 3. Their differing interpretations resulted in this dispute, as Petitioners sold Waldman’s interest in the property “at par value” while Petitioners retained their interest. Waldman Decl. 6. Petitioners explained to Waldman that they had to sell a portion of the ownership in the property because “they had losses and expenses.” Id. 6. Suspicious, Waldman retained legal counsel, Moshe Katlowitz, to investigate, beginning with a review of the partnership’s books and records. Id. 7. Petitioners hired Rabbi Fichel Rabinowitz, who contacted Waldman and suggested submitting the dispute with Petitioners to arbitration. Id. 10. Rabbi Rabinowitz encouraged Waldman to meet Rabbi Gavriel Stern, who “acts in the capacity of a Rabbinical Attorney and arbitrator.” Id. 15. Waldman met with Stern, who “insisted that he meet [Waldman's] attorney” and discuss his “claims and strategy.” Id. 17. Thereafter, Waldman, Katlowitz, and Stern met at Katlowitz’s office, discussed Waldman’s “entire case, including confidential information covered by attorney client privilege,” id. 18, and Stern “convinced” Waldman to submit the dispute to arbitration before Yoel Tzvi Liebermann (“Liebermann” or the “Arbitrator”), id. 20. On October 10, 2018, Petitioners and Waldman entered into an agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration before Liebermann, see ECF No. 5, at Ex. A (the “Agreement”), and the arbitration began that day, see Pet. to Confirm 16. According to Waldman, Stern “held himself out to be [Waldman's] attorney.” ECF No. 30 (“Waldman Reply Decl.”) 2; see also Waldman Decl. 28 (“Stern represented that he was acting as [Waldman's] advocate….”). During the course of the proceedings, Stern engaged in ex parte communications with the Arbitrator. See Waldman Decl. 27. When confronted, Stern “assured [Waldman] that the adversaries had consented” to such communications. Id. “As the Arbitration progressed,” however, it began to appear that the Arbitrator was acting through Stern. Id. 30. For example, Stern himself sent emails “relating to deadlines and submissions,” id., including one email dated October 31, 2018 and signed “T. Liebermann,” see ECF No. 18-1, at 1, and another, sent on August 8, 2019, signed by Stern “[i]n the name of Mr. Liebermann,” id. at 4. On May 21, 2019, Magid wrote to both Liebermann and Stern, requesting a decision in his favor. See ECF No. 18-2. Waldman grew suspicious that “Stern was making arguments against [his] interests to the Arbitrator,” Waldman Decl. 31 and “confronted Stern,” at which point Stern “admitted…that he was not acting as [Waldman's] advocate,” id. 32. On August 27, 2019 — nearly a year after Stern first sent an email signed in the Arbitrator’s name — Stern met with Waldman and disclosed that “he was acting as a hybrid counselor to [the Arbitrator],” simultaneously advocating for both sides in the arbitration. Id.
