Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered May 7, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion to vacate a small claims judgment entered against him pursuant to an arbitrator's award.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action to recover a security deposit plaintiff paid to defendant in connection with an apartment rental, the parties consented to submit the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff the amount sought and the court below denied defendant's motion to vacate the award and to dismiss the action. On appeal,
defendant challenges so much of the order as denied the motion to vacate the award, and to that extent, the order is affirmed.

Ordinarily, mere errors of fact or law are not grounds to overturn an arbitration award (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]; Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; Postiglione v Paumere, 2003 NY Slip Op 51376[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]; see also Matter of NFB Inv. Services Corp. v Fitzgerald, 47 AD3d 747 [2008]). "An arbitrator's award will not be vacated unless it is clearly violative of some strong public policy, [*2]
is totally irrational, or manifestly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 453 [2003]). An award is irrational when, for example, "there is no proof whatever to justify the award" (id., quoting Matter of Peckerman v D & D Assoc., 165 AD2d 289, 296 [1991]), or the arbitrator has so misconstrued the provisions in dispute as to have created "a new contract for the parties" (Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d at
453 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also Matter of Squire v Henschel, 2 AD3d 737, 738 [2003]; Matter of Salco Constr. Co. v Lasberg Constr. Assoc., 249 AD2d 309, 309-310 [1998]). Here, even if the documentation submitted in support of defendant's motion is taken as true, it cannot be said that the award, in this voluntary arbitration, was "wholly irrational" with respect to defendant's liability for the security deposit (Matter of Diaz v Pilgrim State Psychiatric Ctr. of
State of N.Y., 62 NY2d 693, 695 [1984]; see also Matter of Tsikitas v Nationwide Ins. Co., 33 AD3d 928, 929 [2006]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 27, 2008