The following papers, numbers via NYSCEF were read on this motion, to wit: 1-17. Oral argument was heard in court on January 12, 2023, and Decision on the motion was reserved. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence #001. DECISION AND ORDER Facts On October 9, 2022, Petitioner commenced this special proceeding under CPLR §7511 [b] [iii] seeking vacatur or modification of a certain arbitration award determined on July 27, 2022, by retired Justice Barry Salman, currently an arbitrator with Resolute Systems, LLC. An arbitration hearing was held on July 26, 2022, via video conference, subject to the terms of an arbitration agreement entered between the parties. Arbitration proceedings were commenced and closed on the same date, and the arbitrator made the following findings: “Plaintiff was hit in the rear, 8/31/19. No police or ambulance was at the scene. She claims of dizziness, headache, loss of balance. She went to hospital on 9/8/19 and was then treated by several medical and other specialties. Testimony as to a prior accident showed no causal relationship to the injuries alleged in the current claim. The uncontroverted findings of the medical submitted showed years of treatment related to injuries to her head, with a diagnosis of Traumatic Brain Injury due to trauma. A claim for economic loss, earnings, was not supported by any documenting evidence and appeared speculative at best. Plaintiff’s testimony on her future conditions were not supported by any medical testimony or documentation. Any relief which is not herein awarded is expressly denied. Net Award: $175.00″ On September 1, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel corresponded via letter to the arbitrator, seeking reconsideration of the amount of the award. Respondents opposed, and the arbitrator issued a handwritten letter denying reconsideration, wherein the arbitrator states that his findings were made based upon the evidence and documentation submitted. Moreover, the arbitrator maintained as provided for in his decision, that testimony as to future medical care and treatment were not presented at the arbitration. Petitioner now seeks for this court to vacate the arbitration award (inter alia) on the ground that “the arbitrator…making the award exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” Petitioner further argues that the arbitrator awarded a sum of money that reflects the economic loss only, while ignoring the pain and suffering aspect of case. Respondents oppose, arguing that the arbitrator’s decision was not irrational given that “he explained that his decision was based upon, essentially, the quality of the evidence and testimony that was presented to him.” Further, Respondents argue that the arbitrator “did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his power as an arbitrator” and that the decision and award does not violate strong public policy. Discussion “[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 6 NY3d 471 [2006]). ” ‘An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator “ offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” ‘ ” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co v. GEICO, 100 AD3d 878 [2d Dept 2012], quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 6 NY3d 471, 479, quoting Matter of Andros Compania Maritima, S.A., 579 F2d 691, 704 [2d Cir 1978]). In addition, an “arbitrator’s award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 6 NY3d at 479-480. “An 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 Erin Constr & Dev Co., Inc v. Meltzer, 58 AD3d 729, 730[2d Dept 2009]). Insofar as is relevant to the instant proceeding, pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1) (iii), a court may only vacate an arbitration award if the rights of the party moving to vacate the award were prejudiced by the arbitrator “exceed[ing] his [or her] power or so imperfectly execut[ing] it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” “Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of New York City Tr Auth v. Transport Workers’ Union of Am, Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332 [2005]. The decision provided by the arbitrator is scant, and there is neither discussion nor allocation as to what claims the de minimus award of $175.00 encompass. The arbitrator indicates that “[a] claim for economic loss, earnings, was not supported by any documenting evidence and appeared speculative at best. Plaintiff’s testimony on her future conditions were not supported by any medical testimony or documentation.” Finally, the arbitrator provides that “[a]ny relief which is not herein awarded is expressly denied.” Thus, this court must extrapolate that the “Net Award” relates to Petitioner’s remaining claim(s) for personal injuries, including pain and suffering. The sufficiency of the award, is not an issue for this court unless the arbitrator’s decision violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power. As to whether the arbitrator addressed all of the claims presented, this court is hard pressed to find that the arbitrator failed to adjudicate each every claim, by virtue of the final line of the decision before the “Net Award,” to wit: “[a]ny relief which is not herein awarded is expressly denied.” Based upon this language, this court has no basis to find that there was a failure to adjudicate all of Petitioner’s claims. Conclusion Here, the parties agreed to resolve the matter via arbitration, submitted the issues, and claims to arbitration, clearly a proper forum for the resolution of their dispute in this private matter. By so doing, the parties placed upon the arbitrator, not the courts, the responsibility of passing upon the merits of their controversy with the expectation that a just, yet practical, result would be reached. While there may be some doubt as to whether a similar result would have been achieved had this dispute been adjudicated in the courts, such consideration is irrelevant to the disposition of this case, for courts will not second-guess the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the arbitrator (Sprinzen v. Nomberg, 46 NY2d 623 [1979]). The utility of the arbitration process itself is derived from its autonomy, and courts must honor the choice of the parties to have their controversy decided within this framework. Having thus concluded, and acknowledging the wide latitude afforded arbitrators in formulating just relief, the award rendered should not now be disturbed. Decretal Paragraphs Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for a judgment pursuant to CPLR §7511 [b][iii] vacating or modifying the arbitrator’s award is DENIED with prejudice, and it is further, ORDERED, that the clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly. Any relief requested and not expressly addressed herein is denied. This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the court. Dated: January 12, 2023
