On June 23, 2023, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Panzer v. Epstein, 2023 NY Slip Op. 32099(U), holding that arbitrators’ decision not to grant a requested adjournment was not grounds for vacating an arbitral award, explaining:
CPLR 7510 provides that the court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him, unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511. CPLR 7511(b)(l)(i) provides, in relevant part, that the award shall be vacated if the court finds that the rights of the moving party were prejudiced by corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award. Petitioner Panzer bears the burden of establishing a basis to vacate the Final Award. Absent a basis to vacate, the Court is statutorily mandated to confirm the award.
The Court’s role in reviewing an arbitration award is tightly constrained. As the Court of Appeals stated in a seminal decision in this area: It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached. Indeed, we have stated time and again that an arbitrator’s award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice. An arbitrator’s rulings, unlike a trial court’s, are largely unreviewable. Arbitrators are properly given broad discretion with respect to procedural matters such as the scope of discovery. Similarly, adjournments generally fall within the sound exercise of an arbitrator’s discretion pursuant to CPLR 7506(b), the exercise of which will only be disturbed when abused. A refusal to grant an adjournment constitutes misconduct within the meaning of CPLR 7511[b][l][i] only when it results in the failure to hear pertinent and material evidence and in the effective exclusion of an entire issue. Petitioner has not established that the Panel foreclosed the presentation of pertinent and material evidence.
Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, the Panel authorized briefing and considered Petitioner’s adjournment requests prior to the evidentiary hearing. The Panel properly determined that either party could seek an adverse inference at the hearing. Further, Petitioner’s expert testified that his firm was able to complete its appraisal report in advance of the evidentiary hearing. Lastly, the Final Award was issued after post-hearing briefing and makes clear that the Panel considered the parties’ expert testimony and reports. Petitioner’s disagreement with the result is not a sufficient basis to find misconduct under CPLR 7511.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).