On October 7, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Matter of Cuomo v. JAMS, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 05454, holding that an arbitrator’s prior representation of a party, without evidence of bias, was insufficient to justify vacating an award, explaining:
Petitioner argues that the arbitrator failed to disclose four CNN-related matters that Paul Hastings LLP’s labor and employment division had worked on during his employment in that division, albeit he did not personally handle the cases, and that he personally handled a CNN matter for three months in 2003, which generated legal fees under $3,000 (2003 Matter). The arbitrator’s formal disclosure stated that during his employment at Paul Hastings, attorneys in that law firm may have worked on matters that concerned the parties, but he had no personal recollection of those matters. As for the 2003 Matter, the arbitrator averred in a new affidavit that he had no recollection of the matter.
The court properly concluded that petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Petitioner did not set forth facts to indicate that the arbitrator was biased in his handling of the arbitration for nearly a year. Petitioner’s counsel had no objection to the 39 orders issued thus far in the arbitration. Nor did counsel claim there was any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, and was willing to proceed with the arbitration, but only if a new arbitrator was selected by the parties. However, an arbitrator may not be disqualified solely because of his relationship to a party, but rather, upon facts demonstrating partiality to a litigant.
(Internal citations omitted).