Boodrham v Foster

[*1] Boodrham v Foster 2012 NY Slip Op 50627(U) Decided on April 4, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 4, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-616 Q C.

Shivanand Boodrham, Respondent,

against

Louise Foster, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), dated December 16, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover monies he alleged had improperly been paid to defendant as child support. The parties agreed to arbitration and, following an arbitration hearing, an award was entered in plaintiff's favor. Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the arbitrator's award, pursuant to CPLR 7511, arguing that plaintiff had already been reimbursed for any overpayment of child support. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion. On appeal, defendant contends, for the first time, that the arbitrator refused to consider her proof of payment.

In seeking to vacate the arbitration award, defendant bore the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, a violation of one of the statutory grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (see e.g. Matter of Arab v ATC Jewelers, Inc., 45 AD3d 588 [2007]; May v Scotto-D'Abusco, 31 Misc 3d 148[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Benham v George, 28 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51190[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Inasmuch as defendant's moving papers failed to establish any of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (b), the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the award. We note that this court cannot review matters which are dehors the record on appeal (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 04, 2012