CSP Tech., Inc. v Hekal

CSP Tech., Inc. v Hekal 2008 NY Slip Op 09933 [57 AD3d 372] December 18, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

CSP Technologies, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v
Ihab M. Hekal, Respondent.

—[*1] Holland & Knight LLP, New York (David D. Howe of counsel), for appellants.

The Law Offices of Tedd S. Levine, LLC, Garden City (Tedd S. Levine of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 11, 2008, which granted the petition to vacate a prior order of the arbitrators directing exchange of information, only to the extent of granting respondent's cross motion for discovery to be conducted under the supervision of the arbitrators, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition and the cross motion denied, and this proceeding dismissed.

The court lacked authority to entertain the petition to review an intermediary ruling of the arbitrators on a procedural matter (see Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil [Indonesia], 43 NY2d 276 [1977]; Avon Prods. v Solow, 150 AD2d 236, 239-240 [1989]). Such intervention is not authorized by the CPLR, and is proscribed as a matter of policy. The relief "would disjoint and unduly delay the proceedings, thereby thwarting the very purpose of" arbitration (Mobil Oil Indonesia, 43 NY2d at 282).

With respect to the cross motion, the court erroneously determined that the arbitrators lacked authority to direct the parties to produce documents. Although the CPLR does not itself authorize arbitrators "to direct the parties to engage in disclosure proceedings" (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406 [1974]), no statute or policy prevents parties from charting their own procedural course in arbitration by voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rules of the arbitral forum, including, as in this case, rules permitting the arbitrators to direct the exchange of information (see American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration rule R-21 [a] [i]). The strong policy of this State requires the courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, and to leave to the arbitrators the interpretation and application of the procedural rules [*2]of the arbitral forum (Matter of Sobel [Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.], 37 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]; Matter of Faberge, Inc. [Felsway Corp.], 149 AD2d 369, 370 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 610 [1989]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 34200(U).]