Petitioner moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR §7511, vacating or modifying the arbitration award dated June 19, 2013. Petitioner also moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR §3103 and 22 NYCRR §216.1(a), sealing the court file, or in the alternative, sealing the exhibits annexed to the respondent's response to the petition to vacate or modify the arbitration award.

The following papers were read:

Notice of Verified Petition-Verified Petition-1-7

Exhibits A-E [*2]

Notice of Motion-Affidavit8-9

Response to Petition-Exhibits A-E10-15

Reply Affidavit16

Upon the foregoing papers the petition and motion are

decided as follows:

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power (see Matter of DeRaffele Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kaloakas Mgt. Corp., 48 AD3d 807 [2nd Dept 2008] leave to appeal dismissed in part, denied in part by 11 NY3d 862). Moreover, an arbitration award will not be vacated for an error of law or fact committed by the arbitrator unless the award exhibits a manifest disregard for the law (see Matter of WBP Cent. Assoc., LLC v. Deco Constr. Corp., 44 AD3d 781 [2nd Dept 2007]).

Petitioner maintains that there was a miscalculation of figures in the award. Specifically, petitioner alleges that the respondent is only entitled to services rendered to him for his divorce proceeding within sixty (60) days of the invoice date amounting to Six Hundred Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($612.50). It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited and an arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator or arbitrators offer even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached (see Wien & Malkin, LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471 [2006] certiorari dismissed by 548 US 940).

Here, the arbitration panel stated:

"We find the attorney performed valuable services for the client but attempted to charge for services rendered more than 60 days prior to billing for the services in violation of the applicable rules and the retainer statement, and did not adequately document other services."

Given this finding, the arbitration panel found that out of the Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00) previously paid by Mr. Fusco, Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) was to be returned to him. Mr. Fusco acknowledged that respondent tendered him a check for Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($3,180.00) on or about July 25, 2013, however petitioner refused to cash said check.

This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitration panel. While Mr. Fusco may be displeased with the results of the arbitration, he has failed to show sufficient grounds for vacating or modifying the June 19, 2013 award (see CPLR §7511[b],[c]; Matter of Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ. (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864), 20 NY3d 1026 [2013]; Matter of Jordan v. Human Resources Admin. City of NY, 78 AD3d 947 [2nd Dept 2010]).

Petitioner's motion to seal the court's file is granted to the extent that the "Response to Petition to Modify Arbitration Award" is sealed, without opposition. Petitioner demonstrates good cause for the sealing of the response, as the communications annexed as exhibits to the response represent numerous communications between the petitioner and respondent as his former counsel and any public interest in these communications is minimal at best (see generally [*3]22 NY §216.1(a); 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 190 AD2d 483 [1st Dept 1993]).

Based upon the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner motion to seal the court's file is granted to the extent that respondents "Response to Petition to Modify Arbitration Award" is deemed sealed.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:November 13, 2013

Poughkeepsie, New York

ENTER

________________________________

HON. JAMES D. PAGONES, A.J.S.C.