Case Name: DATA & DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, v. INFOKALL, INC., Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-13
Citations: 513 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 12-2456-cv
Parties: DATA & DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, v. INFOKALL, INC., Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT D. SACK, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
DATA & DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, v. INFOKALL, INC., Respondent-Appellant.
No. 12-2456-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 13, 2013.
Jeffrey S. Mandel, Pinilis Halpern, LLP, Morristown, NJ, for Appellant.
Neal Brickman, Law Office of Neal Brickman, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT D. SACK, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Respondent-appellant InfoKall, Inc. appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner-appellee Data & Development, Inc. ("D & D"). InfoKall argues that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded New York law by awarding lost profits to D & D without sufficient evidence. We disagree.
When reviewing a district court's decision to confirm an arbitration award, we review questions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Telenor Mobile Commc'ns AS v. Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 408 (2d Cir.2009). We will vacate an arbitration award for manifest disregard of the law only if the arbitrator ignored or improperly applied clear and explicitly applicable law to the matter before it, leading to an erroneous outcome. T.Co. Metals, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329, 339 (2d Cir.2010). When an arbitrator does not explain its decision, "we -will confirm it if a justifiable ground for the decision can be inferred from the facts of the case." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here the arbitrator issued its award without explanation, as the parties themselves had expressly requested, but we can infer from the award amount that it granted D & D five years of lost profits, minus the amount D & D owed InfoKall for its own breach. Such a calculation is consistent with evidence presented at the hearing, including the testimony of D & D's principal, of lost profits from InfoKall's breach. New York law allows for recovery of lost profits in actions for breach of contract, as long as they are proven with reasonable certainty. See Kenford Co. v. Erie County, 67 N.Y.2d 257, 261, 502 N.Y.S.2d 131, 493 N.E.2d 234 (1986). Since New York law does not absolutely prohibit such damages, we cannot say that the arbitrator's decision was in manifest disregard of this rule. InfoKall's argument amounts to an attack on the arbitrator's decision to credit D & D's witness. But we apply the manifest disregard of the law standard to the facts of the case, "as those facts have been determined by the arbitrator." Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d 200, 213 (2d Cir.2002) (emphasis in original). An arbitration award may not be vacated because of disagreement with the arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.