Majority
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated November 22, 2011, Tamara Pewzner and Ruben Elberg appeal, as limited by their brief, from so
Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the petitioners $200 per day for the period between November 22, 2011, and February 21, 2013, for a total sum of $91,400, plus interest, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the petitioners $200 per day for the period between January 11, 2012, and February 21, 2013, for a total sum of $81,600, plus interest; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the petitioners.
“The court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him [or her], unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511” (CPLR 7510). “An arbitration award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 and subject to vacatur ‘only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy’ ” (Matter of Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v Cheverko, 112 AD3d 840 , 841 [2013], quoting Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526 , 536 [1992]; see Matter of Board of Educ. of Amityville Union Free School Dist. v Amityville Teacher’s Assn., 62 AD3d 992 , 993 [2009]). “An award is final and definite if the computation of the award is so clear and specific that the determination of the amounts owing is merely an accounting calculation” (Matter of Board of Educ. of Amityville Union Free School Dist. v Amityville Teacher’s Assn., 62 AD3d at 994 ; see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498 [2003]).
Here, contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the November 22, 2011, arbitration award was final and definite within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) (see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v South Orangetown Cent. School Dist., 268 AD2d 522 [2000]; see also Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526 [1992]; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498 [2003]). Additionally, while the appellants are correct that, generally, under New York law, arbitrators lack the authority to award punitive damages (see Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston & Cambria v Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 553 , 558 [1979]; Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354 [1976];
Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. Cheverko 112 AD3d 840 at 841 p. 779
- Meisels v. Uhr 79 NY2d 526 at 536 p. 779
- Matter of Board of Education of Amityville Union Free School District v. Amityville Teacher's Ass'n 62 AD3d 992 at 993 p. 779
- Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau 305 AD2d 498 p. 779
- Board of Education v. Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Ass'n 46 NY2d 553 at 558 p. 779
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc. 40 NY2d 354 p. 779
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. 514 US 52 p. 780
- Local 342, Long Island Public Service Employees v. Town of Huntington 195 AD2d 467 at 468 p. 780