The following numbered papers were read on this petition: NYSCEF Document Numbers 1-34. ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, and the Court having elected to determine the within petition on submission pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-f and IAS Part 2 Rules, Part I (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart C (Appearances), Section 6 (Personal Appearances) (“All motions presumptively are to be argued in person unless the Court informs the parties at least two days in advance that it has made a sua sponte determination that a motion will be determined on submission.),” and Part I (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart A (Introduction), Section 1 (Provisions Applicable to Special Proceedings) (“Unless otherwise provided specifically with respect to special proceedings, references to motions in the within Part Rules shall be deemed to include special proceedings.”), and due deliberation having been had thereon, It is hereby determined as follows: This is an Article 75 proceeding to confirm an arbitration award by a beit din. The parties proceeded to arbitration with respect to a dispute over their ownership of shares in Respondent Meir Transport LLC, a transportation company. They did not get along and it was contemplated that one would buy out the other’s shares. Besides seeking a judgment confirming the arbitration award, Petitioner seeks other, ancillary relief as discussed below. The Court must review the petition in a special proceeding to determine whether it makes out a prima facie case for the relief requested through admissible evidence (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Ortho City Servs. Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1204[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50527[U], *4-5 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]). Here, Petitioner made out a prima facie case of entitlement to confirmation of the Beit Din’s final ruling arbitration award of Bais Hora’ah Eitz Chaim dated May 4, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1, 3-11). This has not been sufficiently rebutted by Respondents. Respondents argue in their papers that Petitioner never signed a written agreement containing terms for share ownership of Meir Transport LLC, and that an oral agreement regarding same was never assented to by Petitioner. A written “settlement agreement” (unsigned) included terms outside those worked out by the parties. Moreover, Petitioner failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon him as per the settlement. Since there was no agreement, argues Respondent, there was nothing for the beit din to rule upon. Further, the oral agreement did not satisfy the CPLR’s requirements with respect to stipulations. Much of Respondents’ argument can be distilled in the following statements of their counsel: “[The beit din] merely took the word of one of the parties that an agreement had been finalized and was being defaulted” (NYSCEF Doc No. 23 28). “As the documents show there was never a bona fide agreement between the parties, there was no basis for the arbitral body to find that Respondents were in violation of an agreement that never came into being (id. 29). Respondent himself averred: “Rather than following our agreement, Mr. Kaufman returned to the Beth Din, claiming that I was in default by failing to make payments as agreed under our verbal agreement. I had tried to communicate several times with the Beth Din, unfortunately to no effect, that the intended agreement was neither executed, consummated nor performed by Kaufman. Also that Kaufman blocked my future performance by his refusal to either transfer his shares or to otherwise to sign off on loan agreements as an owner of the business, that would allow him to finally be paid.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 24 14.) Respondent submitted an audio file of an oral agreement reached on February 10, 2022 (“buyout agreement”) (NYSCEF Doc No. 25). The beit din referred to this agreement in their final ruling (see NYSCEF Doc No. 26). While Respondent seeks dismissal of the petition, it seeks alternatively that the Court declare that Petitioner is in default with compliance on his part with the obligations imposed on him — if the Court finds that there was a binding agreement between the parties (see NYSCEF Doc No. 23
