In re the Arbitration between Disston Co. & Aktiebolag

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1992, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s motion to renew its cross-motion seeking to vacate or modify an arbitration award or for leave to amend the cross-motion to include evidence of petitioner’s debt to a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent and of respondent’s right to set-off its liability to petitioner against that debt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This Court previously affirmed an order of the Supreme Court confirming the underlying arbitration award ( 176 AD2d 679 , lv denied 79 NY2d 757 ). The IAS Court properly denied leave to renew as respondent failed to provide a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts to the trial court before perfection of the prior appeal (see, Levitt v County of Suffolk, 166 AD2d 421 , 422-423, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 834 ).

Even had the motion been timely, an arbitration award may not be vacated on grounds of newly discovered evidence (Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v Hanover Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 950 ). Further, because a corporation cannot pierce its own corporate veil to benefit either the parent or a subsidiary (Pennsylvania Eng’g Corp. v Islip Resource Recovery Agency, 710 F Supp 456 , rearg denied 714 F Supp 634 ), the entities herein may not aggregate their individual claims or debts for set-off purposes. (See, Alexander & Alexander v Fritzen, 114 AD2d 814 , affd 68 NY2d 968 .) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.