thank you are my name is william prescott and together together without him tuchman we represent messer industries and liberty mutual insurance in this appeal seeking big kater arbitrator ross the march t the mill case where one party is disputing entitlement that was awarded by the arbitrator to the other party and just to and it was may have been a little while given the distance from there or the original argument but this is excavator these were made by bio p r i and they turned out to be defective and that's what the arbitrator determined resulting in better having to fix these large precast now and fixing these pieces given fact that the equipment was already there on the site and you didn't have to rent it it was always there tell me if he was wrong about that your honor the architect was not wrong about the equipment being on site but a point that i would make is that these men that he ordered all of the cost too were also on safer the border ration is well in other words both the men and the equipment were there on the entire so you had labor costs that were specifically identified to be additional work the question is did you have equipment costs that were specifically identified to work so let me ask you was the crawler that you have in that picture was that associated with it i can understand why you want to charge for it but the question is did the arbitrator make some kind of crazy decision such that it's  to that that crawler could have done something else which was covered by the contract for which you were tracking the county was there a claim that that crowley commit doing something else well it had to do district there was no claim er being on the job site used or not used a part of your cost to to incorporate it with regard to the county it would have only been included within the cost to the extent that was performing work for the rockland county the the literally just the cost of using a crawler was separate and not covered by the cost incorporated within the contract that you had to the county we we make clear to the arbitrator that the cost of the c is not something that is being separately itemised and build out on a discreet basis to rockland county because it is only a corporation into the overall it is part of doing our work on the project and we are here and what it seems to me you need to show is that the arbitrator's decision didn't reflect the plausible rate possible reading of that decision didn't reflect you know what the reasonable made by this arbitrator would have been so obvious so pay it lee obvious that it would have sort of jumped off the page to the to the individual to the arbitrator who would have been qualified and i underscore the word qualify it here this is there was not a stable or that there was a barely tolerable the case of which we agree is the standard she goes through several items st of all she knows the fact that it was a dispute about charges and to which we say well but you lost repeatedly to an actual damages standard when when read in the entire context of the war it's clear that the arbitrator roski was really seeking to reject the proposition in the proper evidence as tender by metra and liberty and then he is it specifically the arbitrator prosecute specifically say then he found that evidence as arbitration i disagree i think it's permissible why wasn't it a stable foundation for damages award for your opponent to a deuce estimates about  justification were his findings i think it's an extremely dangerous proposition now have the word rehashing in arbitration where there is no record or insufficient facts before the court asked what  is made a party wanting to challenge an arbitration decision can never make a claim of manifest disregard or of their qualities that would cause the arbitration or to be tossed  ou know and we do know that notwithstanding some of the the reductions that the arbitrator made with regard to the labor cost the arbitrator warded labor costs are associated with work that was done to install sections that complied with the specifications and or to modify sections that are already in the ground that had specifications problems so we know that now we also know that the arbitrator talked about the fact that he was not going to work damages for for equipment that was already on the site so i mean it it seems to pat to me that there's at least some rob reflection of us of his thinking there and we know from my questions to your opponent that there was no claim that there was work at the crawler or any other clinic could have been performing the cause of then have additional costs associated with equipment that was onsite or other job opportunities off site that they had to forego or they had to supply relic whitman to supplement that so the you know you have a breach and you have consequential damages a new york law requires some proof of a causal relationship with regard to the consequential damages which is why i asked the question let me know if you if we could for a nd i want to talk about interest prejudgment interest why aren't why aren't the terms of your willingly agreed to submit that were some of the claims of the arbitration and i'm only seeking and at this point it is now been determined as determined by the lower court i'm seeking an award from legal fees only for appeal and and that's to be solely of paan at this point it's been determined it should be it's undisputed by the work below at least that and has been determined based upon your willingness to submit to the arbitration that we should and twenty one of her brief now that that's the exact same six five percent when you multiply it out that we argued for but now seems to be arguing for an entirely different rate and furthermore it's the cases also court about interest in a district court judge carney we argued as we are now that you have to take the contract rate of interest and apply it and not the nine percent interest rate that  asked questions to use up your entire rebuttal thank you very much on the point that i would like to return to focus mostly on and for a legal standard for awarding damages  our company owned equipment that is not performing contract work ok so when they damage or when they have a breach as a result of their defective precast piece that we have to fix that they get the equipment for free if it's read it but if it's metra own equipment they get that for free or that they get a charge if it's run it by the metro and they get it for free that's totally illogical there is no stable or we provided a stable foundation the board was then on them to come forward once we provided that stable foundation and asked the wrong two or to come back and say something anything about our damages want to cation they said literally nothing there's not one decision and