Gold v. Freeway Carriers Inc.

Full text

Gold v Freeway Carriers Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32551(U) July 23, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 526762/2023 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM~ COMMERCIAL PA~T 8 --------- .--- --·-------. --- . --------- --. __ _;x MOSHE MENACHEM GOLD, Petitioner,.

For an Order Pursuant to Article 75 Decigion and ~rde~ of the CPLR Confirming an Arbitrat~on Award

-against-

Index No. 526762/2023 FREEWAY CARRIERS INC., CHAIM ELIYAHU POSNER, and JUDITH POSNER, Respondents, July 23, 2024 --- . ----·---------- ·--- . - ·.. __________, ·-· .-.-.-x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #1 & #²

The petitioner has moved pursuant to CPLR §7510 seeking to

confirm an arbitration award. The respondents have .cross"""moved

seeking to dismiss the petition. The motions have been opposed

respectively. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments

held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the

following deterfuination6

According to the petitioh, oh June 3, 2022 an arbitration.

panel issued a decision finding that the respondents owed the

petitioner $153,D00 and required monthly payments of $3,500

commencing April 2023. The petitioner how moves seeking to

confirm the ;:1.ward.. The respondents oppose the motion and ha:ve

cross...;moved see.king to dismis.s the petition on the grounds the

motion t.0 confirm the award has not been filed within one year of

delivery of the award pursuant tci GPLR §7510'. The respondents

-- [* 1] - - - - - - - - - - - - -. ----·------------------------------------- 1 of 5

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024

also seek to dismiss the petition on the grounds the translation

of the a:r:bitrationaward, originally rendered in Hebrew does not

contain an affidavit of a translator. As nott:d the motions are

opposed.

Conclusions cif Law

"It is firmly established that the public policy of New York

State favors and encourages arbitration and alternative dispute

resolutions'; (Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. New York City TL Auth., 82 NY2d 47, 603 NYS2d 404 [1993], citing, Nationwide Gen.

Ins. Co. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91 [1975]). CPLR

Article 75 establishes mechanisms for court confirmation,

vacatur, modification, and enforcement of arbitration awards.

The Article states that a ''court shall confirm an award upon

application of a party ... unless the award is vacated or rriodif ied

upon a grounq specified in section 7 511'' (CPLR §7 510) . Where no

such grourn:Ls exist; a "judgment shall be entered up6n the

confirmation of an award" (CPLR §7514 [al) .

As particularly relevant here, it is well established that

an agreement to proceed before a:. Beth Din is treateci as an

agreement to arbitrate (see, Spilman v. Spilman, 273 AD2d 316,

710 NYS2d 86 [2d Dept., 2000], Weisenberg v. Sass, 20,9 AD2d 424,

619 NYS2d 597 [2d Dept., 1994]). Therefore, arbitration

— 2 —

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024

completely :::atisfied by the losing party may feel little

incentive to convert the award into a judgment~ such conversion

will help ensure the applicability of res judicata and collateral

estoppel in subsequent judicial proceedings" (see, Practice

Commentaries, CPLR §7510). Further, Siegel's notes that "the

winner of the award who gets complete satisfac:tiot:1 from the loser

voluntarily may find scant incentive for bothering with the

further :::tep of "confirming,r it, which means getting a formal

court j udgrnent entered on it. But the CPLR pr·ovides for such a

conversion, and it is perhaps best that the winner make it a

habit to get the award confirmeciinto a jucigmE!nt. The winner has

beerr held entitled to the confirmation even if the amount of the

award has already been paid;' {§..§sh Siegel's New York Practice,

§601: Confirmation . of Award . [2024]).

Therefore, the petitioner has failed to confirm the award

within one year 0£ its delivery. The petitioner has failed to

present any basis why the one year should be tolled.

Consequently, the motion seeking to confirm the award is denied

and the cross-motion seeking to dismiss the petition is• granted.

so ordered.

ENTER:

DATED: July 23, 20;2 4 Broqklyn N.Y. H.bn •. Leon Ruthelsman JSC .

[* 5] ..................................... _____________________________ 5 of 5

Footnotes

[2] of 5 [* 2] agreements .giving a re..i.1:gious tribunal power to resoive .di.sput_es over di-spositioh o.f partnerS::hip ass.ets e:i.the.:r :by judgment or by settlement according to Jewish law gives a tribunal .broad authority i.P. settl:i,ng _s.u_ch disputes {Meisels v. Ohr, 79 "N¥'°2d 526_,

[583] NYS-2d 951 [1992]). First, although the petition state.s the. award was rendered ·on. Jun_e 3, 2022 the translation, even if. :j.mprbperly verifH!d -states. the award was rendered on Ma.rch 6, 2 O2 2. Indeed, the Hebrew·ver.sio n of the aware!, in the language which corresponds to tbe date of the aw-~rd., .c_ontatns a notation to.at_· states ""•-3-6-22."· (see, Arbitration. Award {NY_SC:EF Do.c. 2]). In any event this discrepancy is not relevant to_ th,e court'$ analysis. c:PLR §7 s·.10 states. thc;1t '~the c.o_urt shall cm:if irrit an award upon a.()plication. of a pa;rty made wi_thin one yec:l.r after its deiivery to them;, (i·d). If a proceeding to confirm an a~tard is ·not made within one yea-r. ot de,livery of the award tl')en the. _p:r;oce eding is time barred ( Sa 1 amon v. Fr iedtna n, 11 AD3d 7 00 ;- 78 3 NYS2d 651 [2d Dept., 200.AJ). In Be.lli v. Matthew Be·ncter & Co., 2"4 AD2 d 7 2, Z:6 3 NYS 2 d 8-4-6 pt Dept . , 19 6 5] the. c.ourt exp1a ined tha_t CPLR § 7.51 O is .a statute of limit at i ohs . Mo re over, the court referenced CPLR §215"(5} which states that "an acti.on upon an arb_itration awa·rd" maintains a on:e: year statute c;y;f limitati_o:ns, Although infancy generally tolls statutes of limit,.ations (CPLR .3 3 of 5 [* 3] §208) there is no such toll available to e¥tend the one year statute confirming arbitrations awards in cases of infancy. In Elliot V'. Green Bu$ Lines Inc., 58 NY2d 76, 459 NYS2d 419 [1983] the court explained that ''CPLR 7512 authorize.s the court to extend the time within which an application to confirm an award must be made in the· event o.f the death or incompetency .of a party. Conspicuously omitted is any comparable provision with respect to the infancy of a party. In this circumstance it must be concluded, the more specific provisions overriding the more general, that the general tolling provisions in the event of infancy set forth in CPLR 208 11ave no application" (id). However, that conclusion does not in any way challenge the notion that in f 9 ct the one y(;!ar window in which to confirm an arbitration award is treated as a statute of limitations. Furthermore, there is no evidence the respondent fraudulently induced the petitioner not to move seeking to confirm the arbitration award. (cf., Kil.stein v. Agudath Council of Greater New York. Inc., 133 AD2d 809, 520 NYS2d 189 [2d Dept., 1987]). Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend the one year confirmation d~adline simply because the respondent had made monthly payments pursuant to the arbitration ruling. lri.deed, the practice cbrrtmentaries to CPLR §7510. state that ''althoµgh a successful party whose arbitration award has be:en quickly and 4 4 of 5 [* 4]