By notice of petition and verified petition, petitioner, The Scher Law Firm (Scher), seeks an order confirming an arbitration award and directing judgment be entered.

Respondent opposes and cross-petitions to modify the award and remand to the arbitration panel for a new mathematical computation.

Petitioner files objections to respondent's cross-petition [*2]to modify the arbitration award.

On February 1, 2007, petitioner and respondent, through counsel, agreed to enter into Court sponsored "binding arbitration...with both parties waiving their rights to appeal for de novo review," (petitioner's Exh. A. para. 1) to resolve the outstanding fee dispute between petitioner and their former client, respondent for services rendered. The matter, therefore, was submitted to a panel pursuant to Part 137 Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queens County.

On May 1, 2007, the panel of arbitrators issued an award reflecting a claim that $112,655.53 was in dispute; and, that $110,614.53 was due and owing by respondent to petitioner after certain credits and other deductions were taken. Petitioner now seeks to have said award confirmed and a judgment entered.

Although the Scher firm represented the respondent corporation on numerous other matters during their relationship as attorney and client, there were only two accounts submitted to the arbitrators over which there was a dispute. These were the "Nextel" matter and the "Rosenthal" matter.

Respondent now claims that there was an error in the calculations by the arbitrators concerning the amount paid by respondent to the firm. What respondent characterizes as a mathematical error, however, is in fact a substantive dispute already determined by the arbitrators concerning which legal matter each payment amount would be credited to. (See respondent's Exh. H, Letter to Stephen D. Fink, Esq., para. 5 to 9). (See Matter of Teamsters Local 814 v. County Van Lines, Inc, 15 Misc 3d 1125A, Queens Sup. Ct., Hon. Joseph P. Dorsa, 4/27/07).

It is well settled that "[o]nce a dispute has moved to arbitration, a party seeking to vacate the award has a heavy burden because questions of law and fact are merged in the award and are not within the power of the judiciary to resolve" (citations omitted) Fishman v. Roxanne Mgt., 24 AD3d 365, 366, 806 NYS2d 541 (1st Dep't 2005).

"It is equally well settled that a party who participates in an arbitration may seek to vacate an arbitration award only on the grounds that the rights of that party were prejudiced by corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award, that the arbitrator lacked impartiality, that the arbitrator exceeded his power or failed to make a final or definite award, or that there was a procedural failure that was not waived. (See CPLR [*3]7511[b][1]; Matter of Sims v. Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 376 [1998])." Id.

Finally, "...New York Courts have uniformly held that an arbitrator exceeds his powers only when he ignores specific limitations on the powers delegated to him in the arbitration clause or he gives a completely irrational construction to the provisions of the parties agreement, thereby effectively rewriting it. Integrated Sales v. Maxwell Corp. of Am., 94 AD2d at 225; see also Matter of Silverman, 61 NY2d at 307..." Id.

Moreover, "[a]n arbitrator's award will not be vacated even [if] the court concludes that his interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308; see Matter of Neiman v. Backer, 211 AD2d 721)." Matter of 645 First Avenue Manhattan Co. v. Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc., 220 AD2d 517, 518 (2d Dep't 1995).

Accordingly, upon all of the foregoing, respondent's cross-motion is denied in its entirety; and, it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the petition is granted and the award rendered in favor of petitioner and against respondent is confirmed; and, it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that petitioner, The Scher Law Firm, LLP, having an address at One Old Country Road, Carle Place, NY 11514, shall have judgment and recover against respondent, 87-10 51st Avenue Owners Corporation, having an address at 87-10 51st Avenue, Apt. 1R, Elmhurst, NY 11373, in the amount of 110,614.53, plus interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of May 1, 2007, as computed by the Clerk in the amount of $, together with costs and disbursements in the amount of $, as taxed by the Clerk, for the total amount of $, and that the petitioner have execution therefore.

Dated: Jamaica, New York

September 12, 2007

______________________________

JOSEPH P. DORSA

J.S.C.

OCA e-submission: no Judge E-Mail