Court Opinion

ID: 9958726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:04.296515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.590796
License: Public Domain

Fischer v Nash
               2024 NY Slip Op 31107(U)
                      April 2, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 516948/2023
                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 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                                       INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF' KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
           -.-·- ..... ---------.. - ·-· -·--------. --·- ·--·· ---x..
           DAVID FISCHER,
                                                   Petitioner;              Decision artd order

                           ;.. . against -                               Index No. 516948/2023

           CHAIM TZVI NASH,
                                                   Respondent,                   April 2, 2024
           ---------- -------- -------- ---- --------x
           PRESENT: HON, LEON RUCHB)LSMAN                                       Motion Seq. #1

                 The petitioner has moved pursuant to CPLR §7510 seeking to

           qonfirm an arbitration award and an injunction preventing the

           respondent f~om transferrihg certain property he owns.                     The

           respondent has cross-moved seeking to vacate or remand that

           arbitration award.         The motions have been opposed respectively.

            Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held.                    After

           reviewing all the arguments this court makes the following

           determination.

                   On or about November 9, 2022 the parties entered into an

           arbitration agreement to resolve a dispute between th.e parties

            regarding loans made by the petitioner that were not paid back by

           the respondent.       On March 8, 2023 the arbitration panel issued a

           decision and held that the r:espondent owes the petitioner seven

           .million dollars and that s.uch amount was r.i?quired to be paid by

            February 15, 2024~        The arbitration award concluded that

            ''Claimant   sha: 11 not con£ i rm .this. ruling immediately. How Elver, in
           the .event payment i~m' t         recei v.ed in full within: the above time

            frame, ciaitnant may confirm this           ruling in any court of law''

                                                   1 of 10
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                              INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            (see, Arbitration Decision; :ITS [NYSCEF Doc. No. 1]).          Thus, the

            arbitration award afforded the petitioner approximately eleven

           .months in which to pay the award.         On May 24, 2023 the

            arbitration panel issued a "continuation" award, without

            respondent's participation, when they learned the respondent was

            attempting to sell property he owned.         Thus, the continuation

            award stated that the respondent was not permitted to sell

            property located in Florida until he paid the money owed to

            petitioner.      The p.eti ti oner now moves seeking to confirm the

            arbitration awards.       The respondent opposes the motion argµing

            there can be no confirmation of the continuation award where they

            had no opportunity to participate in that proce~ding.            Thus, they

            seek to either vacate the award or remand for further

            proceedings ..

                                          Conclusions of Law

                   CPLR Article 7 5 establishes mechanisms for co\1rt

            confirmation.;. vacatur,    modification, .and enforcement. 0£

            arbitratiorr awards.      The Article states that a ''court shall

            confirm an award upon application of a party, .. unless the award

            is: vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section

            7511'' (CPLR §7 510) .   Where no such grounds exist, a "judgment

            shall be entered upon the confirmation of an award 11 (CPLR

            §7 5.14 (a) 1.   Thus, to vacate an ar]?itration award. the .party

                                                  2

                                               2 of 10
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                                INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            maintains a. heavy burden and must establish such vacatur by clear

            and convincing evidence (Jurcec v. Moloney. 164 AD3d 1461, 84

            NYS3d 433 [2d Dept., 2018]).           CPLR §7511 present four grounds for

            vacatur of an arbitration <3.Ward.           They are, 1) corruption, fraud

            o.r misconduct in procuring the award, 2) partiality of an

            arbitrator, 3) an arbitrator making the award exceeded his power;

            and 4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR Article 75.
                  The court need not consider whether t.he continuation award

            was improper since it was issued without the respondent's

            consent.    First, c:;ontrary to the arg1,1ments _of the respondent, the

            continuation award does not contradict the original award.              The

            original award ordered the respondent to pay seven million
            dollars by February 15, 2024.           The continuation award prohibited

            the respondent from selling a property he owned in Florida.

            There is nothing inconsistent about these rulings that undermine

            the original award's effectiveness.             Further, there fs no merit

            to the argument the petitioner sought to confirm the award prior
            to February l4r    20.24 ..     An award is confirmed upon judicial

            confirmation.     Of course, a court cannot confirm an award without
            a motion filed seeking that relief, however, the filing of the
            motion is ,not a confirmation.          Thus, until the court confirms the

            award, any necessary and prelimiha,ry activity oh the part of the

            petitioner, prior to February 14, 2024, does not violate the

            te:l'.'ms of the award.       The. respondent insists tfi,e confirmation of

                                                     3

                                                  3 of 10
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                            INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            any awai-d was not ripe until February 14 1 2024.       That is

            certainly true, however, that did not foreclose the :pE!titiorier to

            engage in any activity to secure a confi.tmation. as close to

            February 14, 2024 as possible.      The petitiqner's arguments the

            motion for confirmation was filed early because the respondent

            failed to abide by the continuati,on award need not be considered

            since in any event the award was not confirmed prior to February

            14, 2024.   The respondent's assertions the mere filing of the

            request constituted a breach of the arbitration clause does not

            withstand any analysis.     Thus, even ignoring the continuation

            award there is no reason    to deny confirmation Of the original
            award.

                  Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motion seeking to

            confirm the arbitration award is granted arid the pe-titioner may

            take any measures to enforce the judgement including the filing

            of a copy of the decision with the county clerk in the dounty

            where said property is located.

                  Turning to the motion seeking an inj_unction prohibiting the

            respondent from selling the Florida property, it is clear the:

            respondent never followed the continuation a.ward's instruction

           which required the respondent to file a notification the property

            would not b.e .sold.   Thus( this reque.st is really ~n.relat.eci :i:o the

            continuation. award and. can be vi.ewed in this context.

                 CPLR §7502 (c) stat~s that ')the. supreme. cqurt in the county

                                                .4

                                             4 of 10
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                            INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            ih which .an arpitration is pending ... may entertain an application

            for an order of attachment or for a preliminary injunction in

            connection with an arbitration that is pending or that is to be'

            coriunenced ... but only upon the ground that the award to which the

            applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without

            such provisional relief. The provisions of articles 62 and 63 of

            this chapter shall apply to the application" (id).         Thus, even if
            that statute is applicable where an arbitration award has already

            been obtained, in order to seek an injunction the petitioner must

            demonstrate the award may be rendered ineffectual without it and

            must further "also rriake a showing of the traditional eqqitable

            criteria for the granting of temporary relief Under CPLR article

            63" namely, a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable

            injury and a balancing of the equities in the petitioner's favor

            (see, Winter v. Brown, 49 AD3d 526, 853 NYS2d 361 [2d Dept.,

            2008]) .

                  There can really be no dispute the petitioner ha:s satisfied

            the first prong since the petitioner has already prevailed in the

            arbitration proceeding.     In order to $atisfy the second prong of

            irreparable harm it must be demonstrated that monetary damages

            are insufficient (AUtoone Tnsurance Company v. Manhattan Heights

           ·Medical    P.C., 24 Mi:sc3d l229(A), 899 NYS2d .57 [Supreme Court
            Queens County, 2009]).     The petitioner does riot evert allege

            anything other than money damages.        Thus, any alleged.loss. whi.eh

                                            5 of 10
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                               INDEX NO. 516948/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            can be compensated by money damages is not irreparable harm

            (Family Friendly Media Inc., v. Recorder Television Network, 74

            AD3d 738, 903 NYS2d 80 [2ci Dept., 2010}) ..      An injunction based

            upon purely monetary damages is improper even if the passage of

            time will render any judgement obtained ine.ffectual (Rosenthal v ..

            Rochester Button Company, 148 AD2d 375, 539 NYS2d 11 [st Dept.;

            1989]}.

                  Therefore, there is no basis to enjoin the respondent from

            selling his property since the only harm this may cause the:

            petitioner is monetary in nature.       Indeed, even the case cited by

            petitioner in favor o.f the injunction actually denied the request

            for an in:j uncti·on on the: gTounds no irreparable harm was

            presented (JY Not So Common L.P .. v. P    &   R Bronx,   LLC,   79 Misc3d

            626, 191 NYS3d 904 [Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2023]).

                  Thus, the motion seeking an injunction is denied.

                  Lastly, there is no basis for a vacatur or remand of the

            original arbitration award and ahy cross-motion seeking such

            relief is denied.

                  So ordered.

                                       ENTER:

            DAT.ED: April 2, 2024
                    Brook.1.yn N.Y,         Hon. Leon :R,uche:lsma,n
                                            JSC

                                                6

                                           6 of 10
[* 6]