Kingdon Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Kaufman

• Decision Date: 31 October 2013
• Citation: 110 A.D.3d 648,975 N.Y.S.2d 4,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07132
• Parties: In re KINGDON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Marjorie KAUFMAN, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 648

975 N.Y.S.2d 4

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07132

In re KINGDON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.Marjorie KAUFMAN, Respondent–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Oct. 31, 2013.

Greenspan & Greenspan, White Plains (Leon J. Greenspan of counsel), for appellant.

Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York (Michael S. Schachter of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, DeGRASSE, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 5, 2013, confirming an arbitration award dated June 28, 2012, and awarding respondent the sum and prejudgment interest set by the award, plus costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to show that the arbitrators exceeded their power ( see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL–CIO, 6 N.Y.3d 332, 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 413, 845 N.E.2d 1243 [2005]; CPLR 7511[b]; 9 USC § 10[a][1]-[4] ) or manifestly disregarded the law ( see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 480–481, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201, cert. dismissed548 U.S. 940, 127 S.Ct. 34, 165 L.Ed.2d 1012 [2006]; Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v. Refco Sec., LLC, 83 A.D.3d 592, 922 N.Y.S.2d 312 [1st Dept.2011] ).

Respondent lacks any basis for invoking the protections of Labor Law § 198(1–a), since there is no indication in the record before us that she timely asserted any Labor Law claim before the arbitrators ( see Matter of Obot [New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.], 89 N.Y.2d 883, 653 N.Y.S.2d 245, 675 N.E.2d 1197 [1996] ). In any event, the arbitrators properly declined to award respondent incentive compensation beyond her termination date, particularly since they determined that her compensation agreement had been orally modified in 2009 without mention of continuing incentive compensation beyond termination ( see Mackie v. La Salle Indus., 92 A.D.2d 821, 460 N.Y.S.2d 313 [1st Dept.], appeal dismissed60 N.Y.2d 612 [1983] ).

There is no basis for disturbing the arbitrators' decision not to award respondent attorneys' fees or other costs pursuant to Labor Law § 198(1–a). Nor is there any basis for modifying the rate of prejudgment interest awarded ( see Matter of Gruberg [Cortell Group], 143 A.D.2d 39, 531 N.Y.S.2d 557 [1st Dept.1988]; Matter of Rothermel [Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters], 280 A.D.2d 862, 721 N.Y.S.2d 565 [3d Dept.2001] ).

We have considered appella...