You are here: / / Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested...

Arbitrator Exceeded His/Her Powers by Awarding More than the Requested Amount in Damages—Award Properly Vacated

The Second Department explained that the arbitrator exceeded his/her powers by awarding more than the requested damages:

An arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding his or her power; or (4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR article 75 (see CPLR 7511[b]). In addition, an arbitration award may be vacated if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power … .

An arbitrator's authority “extends to only those issues that are actually presented by the parties” …, and an arbitrator exceeds his or her authority by reaching issues not raised by the parties … . Here, the arbitrator awarded the petitioner $43,000 in damages based on the amount due under the subject contract, although the petitioner sought only $34,920 in damages for work done above and beyond the contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly vacated the award as issued in excess of the arbitrator's authority … . Matter of Slocum v Madariaga, 2014 NY Slip Op 09005, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

You might also like
IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against Creditors, and College Funds Established in Other States, Which Are Not Protected, Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause
THE JUDGE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After Learning... Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the...