The application by petitioner for an order pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 7510, confirming the arbitration award and directing that judgment be entered in favor of petitioner against respondent, in the sum of $21,245.81 plus interest from October 20, 2010, as well as costs and disbursements, is granted.

In 2008, petitioner retained respondent for legal services and remitted payment of fees in the amount of $21,635.89. On or about March 4, 2010, petitioner initiated a fee dispute against respondent by filing a request with the New York County Lawyer's Association. The instant petition arises from an arbitration proceeding administered by a panel of three arbitrators on or about October 20, 2010. After having considered all of the evidence, the arbitrators unanimously decided in favor of petitioner in the amount of $21,245.81.

Respondent submits papers in opposition and cross-moves on behalf of Rahul Manchanda, Esq., a non-party, for an order vacating the arbitration award. Respondent argues that the arbitration award in favor of petitioner was made in error. Respondent asserts that its fees were reasonable and justifiable. Respondent also argues that it was prejudiced by the biased behavior of one of the arbitrators as well as the inactions and incompetence of its of-counsel Mark Aronson, who represented respondent's interests in the arbitration proceeding.

In reply, petitioner argues that respondent's cross-petition is defective in several respects. Petitioner argues that the caption used designates "Rahul Manchanda, Esq." as respondent. Rahul Manchanda, Esq. is neither a party to the action nor is he a party to the underlying arbitration. Petitioner also contends that the cross-petition fails to set forth a time or place where the cross-petition is to be heard and it also fails to set forth a date by which a response is required. In addition, petitioner argues that there are only a limited number of grounds on which an arbitration award can be vacated and respondent has failed to establish one of them.

C.P.L.R. § 7510 states that "the court shall confirm an award upon application of a party [*2]made within one year after its delivery to him, unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511." C.P.L.R. § 7511 provides limited grounds to either vacate or modify an arbitration award. The grounds to vacate an award include corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award, the partiality of the arbitrator, or an arbitrator exceeding his or her authority or a failure to follow the procedure of Article 75. C.P.L.R. § 7511(b). An arbitration award shall be modified in three instances: 1) the award contains a miscalculation or a mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; 2) the award concerns matters not submitted to arbitration, and the award can be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision; or 3) the award is imperfect as a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. C.P.L.R. § 7511(c).

Respondent submit papers on behalf of a non-party and, therefore, this court will not treat respondent's papers as a cross-petition. As such, respondent has not moved to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Therefore, the arbitration award is hereby confirmed.

However, it is important to note that even if this court had chosen to treat respondent's papers as a cross-petition, the arbitration award would still be confirmed. The vacating of an arbitration award based on bias may be granted only if "the rights of that party was prejudiced...by partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral..." C.P.L.R. § 7511(b)(1)(ii). The mere suggestion of partiality on the part of the arbitrator does not warrant vacatur. See, Rose v. J.J. Lowrey, Co., 181 AD2d 418 (1st Dept. 1992); Matter of Provenzano v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 28 AD2d (1st Dept. 1967).

In the instant application, respondent posits vague and conclusory statements regarding the alleged bias and malicious conduct of one of the arbitrators. Respondent fails to cite any specific conduct or statements on the part of the arbitrator during the hearing. Therefore, this court finds that respondent has not met its burden of showing that it was prejudiced by the partiality of an arbitrator.

This court also rejects respondent's second contention that it was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of counsel. C.P.L.R. 7511(b) sets forth the exclusive grounds in which an arbitration award can be vacated. The ineffective assistance of counsel does not fall under any of the enumerated grounds.

ADJUDGED that the application by petitioner to confirm the arbitration award is granted with interest, costs and disbursements to petitioner; and it is further

ADJUDGED that petitioner Ernesto Martinez, having an address at _____________________________, do recover from respondent Manchanda Law Office, PLLC, having an address at ____________________________, the amount of $21,245.81, plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of October 20, 2010, plus costs and disbursements, as

computed by the Clerk in the amount of $_______________ as taxed by the Clerk, for the total amount of $_____________, and that the petitioner have execution therefor.

Dated: November 7, 2011

ENTER:

________________________

J.S.C.