Henry Quentzel Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. v. Quentzel

• Decision Date: 10 May 1993
• Citation: 193 A.D.2d 678,598 N.Y.S.2d 23
• Parties: In the Matter of HENRY QUENTZEL PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., INC., Appellant, v. Paul QUENTZEL, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 23

598 N.Y.S.2d 23

193 A.D.2d 678

In the Matter of HENRY QUENTZEL PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., INC., Appellant, v. Paul QUENTZEL, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

May 10, 1993.

Marvin H. Wolf, Mineola, for appellant.

Munley, Meade, Burns & Nielsen, P.C., Great Neck, (Richard A. Librett and James G. Meade, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, BALLETTA and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered April 15, 1991, which, inter alia, upon an order of the same court dated March 6, 1991, granting the respondents' motion to confirm the arbitration award, confirmed the award. The petitioner's notice of appeal from the order dated March 6, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520[c].

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant contends that the arbitration award should be vacated because one of the three arbitrators who heard the matter should have been disqualified from sitting on the panel. At the commencement of the arbitration hearing, it was revealed that one of the arbitrators, a specialist in forensic accounting, had previously had occasional professional contacts with the respondents' expert witness and the accounting firm for which the expert worked. The arbitrator and the witness had served together on several professional committees and educational panels in the past, and the arbitrator had sometimes served as an unpaid consultant for the firm, something which he had done for many major accounting firms in the country. However, there had been no personal contact between the arbitrator and the witness during the period of two to four years immediately prior to the arbitration hearing.

It is well settled that mere occasional associations between an arbitrator and a party or witness will not warrant disqualification of the arbitrator on the ground of the appearance of bias or partiality (see, Matter of Siegel [Lewis], 40 N.Y.2d 687, 690, 389 N.Y.S.2d 800, 358 N.E.2d 484; Matter of Labor Relations Section of Northern N.Y. Bldrs. Exch. v. Gordon, 41 A.D.2d 25, 27, 341 N.Y.S.2d 714; Matter of Colony Liq. Distrs. [Local 669], 34 A.D.2d 1060, 1061, 312 N.Y.S.2d 403; Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 A.D.2d 913, 914, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1014, affd., 12 N.Y.2d 806, 236 N.Y.S.2d 61, 187 N.E.2d 129). Rather, it must be shown that the arbitrator and the party or witness have some ongoing relationship (see, Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], supra, 15 A.D.2d at 914, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1014). The very purpose of arbitration is...