FIA Card Servs., N.A., Matter of, v Webb

[*1] FIA Card Servs., N.A., Matter of, v Webb 2009 NY Slip Op 52236(U) [25 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on November 6, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 6, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570413/09. In the Matter of the Arbitration

Between FIA Card Services, N.A. f/k/a MBNA America Bank, N.A., Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Darin E. Webb, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent Darin E. Webb appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered July 8, 2008, which granted petitioner's petition to confirm an arbitration award and awarded it the principal sum of $15,540.80.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered July 8, 2008, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Inasmuch as the notice of arbitration served upon respondent Webb did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 7503(c), he is not precluded from raising the threshold issue of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties exists (see Matter of Blamowski [Munson Transp.], 91 NY2d 190, 195 [1997]). We nonetheless conclude that respondent Webb is bound by the arbitration clause unambiguously set forth in the underlying credit card agreement (see Matter of Fodor v MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 473 [2006]). Nor has respondent Webb established any other basis to avoid confirmation of the arbitration award. Any technical defect in the form of the arbitrator's affirmation was rectified by petitioner in its reply papers and, in any event, would not warrant vacatur of the award (see Matter of Stolthaven Perth Amboy, Inc. v JLM Mktg., Inc., 47 AD3d 414 [2008]; Matter of MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v Anastasio, 35 AD3d 474 [2006]). We note further that a copy of the award was delivered to respondent Webb in the manner provided in the agreement (see CPLR 7507).

We have considered and rejected respondent Webb's remaining argument.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 06, 2009