Court Refuses to Vacate Award Based on Arbitrators’ Choice of Procedure During Pandemic

On December 3, 2021, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Tender Touch Health Care Servs. Inc. v. Tnuzeg LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op. 32555(U), holding that the arbitrators’ choice of procedure during the pandemic did not justify vacating an arbitral award, explaining:

The Court’s role in reviewing an arbitration award is tightly constrained. As the Court of Appeals has held: 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.

Respondents’ arguments in opposition to confirmation (and in support of vacating the Award) are unavailing. Their complaints about the operation of the Beth Din and its purported unwillingness to accommodate the COVID-related concerns of Respondents’ expert witnesses to testify live (though their reports were presented) are insufficient. To be sure, some aspects of the procedure might be unusual to those used to litigating in state or federal court, but that is the forum the parties chose to resolve their dispute. The Court sees nothing in the record to suggest the panel was corrupt, fraudulent, irrational or impartial. This was a business dispute and they reached a decision based upon a process to which the parties freely agreed.

(Internal quotations and citations omitted).

Stay informed!
Sign up for email alerts and notifications here.