Gold v. Freeway Carriers Inc.

Gold v Freeway Carriers Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32551(U) July 23, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 526762/2023 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM~ COMMERCIAL PA~T 8 --------- .--- --·-------. --- . --------- --. __ _;x MOSHE MENACHEM GOLD, Petitioner,.

For an Order Pursuant to Article 75 Decigion and ~rde~ of the CPLR Confirming an Arbitrat~on Award

-against- Index No. 526762/2023 FREEWAY CARRIERS INC., CHAIM ELIYAHU POSNER, and JUDITH POSNER, Respondents, July 23, 2024 --- . ----·---------- ·--- . - ·.. __________, ·-· .-.-.-x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #1 & #2

The petitioner has moved pursuant to CPLR §7510 seeking to confirm an arbitration award. The respondents have .cross"""moved seeking to dismiss the petition. The motions have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following deterfuination6 According to the petitioh, oh June 3, 2022 an arbitration.

panel issued a decision finding that the respondents owed the petitioner $153,D00 and required monthly payments of $3,500 commencing April 2023. The petitioner how moves seeking to confirm the ;:1.ward.. The respondents oppose the motion and ha:ve cross...;moved see.king to dismis.s the petition on the grounds the motion t.0 confirm the award has not been filed within one year of delivery of the award pursuant tci GPLR §7510'. The respondents

-- [* 1] - - - - - - - - - - - - -. ----·------------------------------------- of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024 also seek to dismiss the petition on the grounds the translation of the a:r:bitrationaward, originally rendered in Hebrew does not contain an affidavit of a translator. As nott:d the motions are opposed.

Conclusions cif Law "It is firmly established that the public policy of New York State favors and encourages arbitration and alternative dispute resolutions'; (Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. New York City TL Auth., 82 NY2d 47, 603 NYS2d 404 [1993], citing, Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91 [1975]). CPLR Article 75 establishes mechanisms for court confirmation, vacatur, modification, and enforcement of arbitration awards.

The Article states that a ''court shall confirm an award upon application of a party ... unless the award is vacated or rriodif ied upon a grounq specified in section 7 511'' (CPLR §7 510) . Where no such grourn:Ls exist; a "judgment shall be entered up6n the confirmation of an award" (CPLR §7514 [al) .

As particularly relevant here, it is well established that an agreement to proceed before a:. Beth Din is treateci as an agreement to arbitrate (see, Spilman v. Spilman, 273 AD2d 316, 710 NYS2d 86 [2d Dept., 2000], Weisenberg v. Sass, 20,9 AD2d 424, 619 NYS2d 597 [2d Dept., 1994]). Therefore, arbitration

2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024 agreements .giving a re..i.1:gious tribunal power to resoive .di.sput_es over di-spositioh o.f partnerS::hip ass.ets e:i.the.:r :by judgment or by settlement according to Jewish law gives a tribunal .broad authority i.P. settl:i,ng _s.u_ch disputes {Meisels v. Ohr, 79 "N¥'°2d 526_, NYS-2d 951 [1992]).

First, although the petition state.s the. award was rendered ·on. Jun_e 3, 2022 the translation, even if. :j.mprbperly verifH!d -states. the award was rendered on Ma.rch 6, 2 O2 2. Indeed, the Hebrew·ver.sio n of the aware!, in the language which corresponds to tbe date of the aw-~rd., .c_ontatns a notation to.at_· states ""•-3-6-22."· (see, Arbitration. Award {NY_SC:EF Do.c. 2]). In any event this discrepancy is not relevant to_ th,e court'$ analysis.

c:PLR §7 s·.10 states. thc;1t '~the c.o_urt shall cm:if irrit an award upon a.()plication. of a pa;rty made wi_thin one yec:l.r after its deiivery to them;, (i·d). If a proceeding to confirm an a~tard is ·not made within one yea-r. ot de,livery of the award tl')en the.

_p:r;oce eding is time barred ( Sa 1 amon v. Fr iedtna n, 11 AD3d 7 00 ;- 78 3 NYS2d 651 [2d Dept., 200.AJ). In Be.lli v. Matthew Be·ncter & Co., 2"4 AD2 d 7 2, Z:6 3 NYS 2 d 8-4-6 pt Dept . , 19 6 5] the. c.ourt exp1a ined tha_t CPLR § 7.51 O is .a statute of limit at i ohs . Mo re over, the court referenced CPLR §215"(5} which states that "an acti.on upon an arb_itration awa·rd" maintains a on:e: year statute c;y;f limitati_o:ns, Although infancy generally tolls statutes of limit,.ations (CPLR

.3

3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024

§208) there is no such toll available to e¥tend the one year statute confirming arbitrations awards in cases of infancy. In Elliot V'. Green Bu$ Lines Inc., 58 NY2d 76, 459 NYS2d 419 [1983] the court explained that ''CPLR 7512 authorize.s the court to extend the time within which an application to confirm an award must be made in the· event o.f the death or incompetency .of a party. Conspicuously omitted is any comparable provision with respect to the infancy of a party. In this circumstance it must be concluded, the more specific provisions overriding the more general, that the general tolling provisions in the event of infancy set forth in CPLR 208 11ave no application" (id).

However, that conclusion does not in any way challenge the notion that in f 9 ct the one y(;!ar window in which to confirm an arbitration award is treated as a statute of limitations.

Furthermore, there is no evidence the respondent fraudulently induced the petitioner not to move seeking to confirm the arbitration award. (cf., Kil.stein v. Agudath Council of Greater New York. Inc., 133 AD2d 809, 520 NYS2d 189 [2d Dept., 1987]).

Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend the one year confirmation d~adline simply because the respondent had made monthly payments pursuant to the arbitration ruling. lri.deed, the practice cbrrtmentaries to CPLR §7510. state that ''althoµgh a successful party whose arbitration award has be:en quickly and

4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/23/2024 11:31 AM INDEX NO. 526762/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/23/2024 completely :::atisfied by the losing party may feel little incentive to convert the award into a judgment~ such conversion will help ensure the applicability of res judicata and collateral estoppel in subsequent judicial proceedings" (see, Practice Commentaries, CPLR §7510). Further, Siegel's notes that "the winner of the award who gets complete satisfac:tiot:1 from the loser voluntarily may find scant incentive for bothering with the further :::tep of "confirming,r it, which means getting a formal court j udgrnent entered on it. But the CPLR pr·ovides for such a conversion, and it is perhaps best that the winner make it a habit to get the award confirmeciinto a jucigmE!nt. The winner has beerr held entitled to the confirmation even if the amount of the award has already been paid;' {§..§sh Siegel's New York Practice, §601: Confirmation . of Award . [2024]).

Therefore, the petitioner has failed to confirm the award within one year 0£ its delivery. The petitioner has failed to present any basis why the one year should be tolled.

Consequently, the motion seeking to confirm the award is denied and the cross-motion seeking to dismiss the petition is• granted.

so ordered.

ENTER: DATED: July 23, 20;2 4 Broqklyn N.Y. H.bn •. Leon Ruthelsman JSC .

[* 5] ..................................... _____________________________ of 5