You are here: / / COURT’S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED...

COURT’S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, VACATION OF AWARD REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that Supreme Court did not have the power to order reconsideration of certain portions of the arbitration award (of over $100 million). The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here. The importance of the opinion is its detailed explanation of a court's limited power to review an arbitration award, even where the arbitrators got the law wrong:

The order vacating the award in part cannot be justified under the “emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution” embodied in the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act],  a policy that “applies with special force in the field of international commerce” … . Under the FAA, even if an arbitral tribunal's legal and procedural rulings might reasonably be criticized on the merits, an award is not subject to vacatur for ordinary errors of the kind the court identified in this case, as opposed to manifest disregard of the law, a concept that … means “more than a simple error in law”… . “The potential for . . . mistakes [by the arbitrators] is the price for agreeing to arbitration” … , and, “however disappointing [an award] may be,” parties that have bargained for arbitration “must abide by it” ( ,,, [“Errors, mistakes, departures from strict legal rules, are all included in the arbitration risk”]). Accordingly, we reverse, grant the petition to confirm the award, and deny the cross motion to vacate it. Matter of Daesang Corp. v NutraSweet Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06331, First Dept 9-27-18

ARBITRATION (COURT'S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, VACATION OF AWARD REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) (COURT'S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, VACATION OF AWARD REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Acknowledgment of Debt in Bankruptcy Proceeding Restarted Statute of Limitations 
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
IN AN ACTION BY CATERING WAITSTAFF SEEKING TIPS ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD BY THE EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM A CONTRACTOR WHICH SUPPLIED CATERING STAFF TO THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS... ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM)...