Arbitration

1. Law Lessons from Dorfner v. Point Emergency Physicians, P.A., App. Div., April 25, 2006, NOT FOR PUBLICATION, DOCKET NO. A-2896-04T3:
   
   A court's review of arbitration awards is limited. N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1 to -32 [the predecessor statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:24-1 to -11, was repealed effective January 1, 2003].
   
   In Tretina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick & Assocs, Inc., 135 N.J. 349, 358 (1994), the Court adopted the view of Chief Justice Wilentz in his concurring opinion in Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479 (1992), as the proper standard of review in private arbitration awards. The Chief Justice said:
   Basically, arbitration awards may be vacated only for fraud, corruption, or similar wrongdoing on the part of the arbitrators. [They] can be corrected or modified only for very specifically defined mistakes as set forth in [N.J.S.A. 2A:24-9]. If the arbitrators decide a matter not even submitted to them, that matter can be excluded from the award. For those who think the parties are entitled to a greater share of justice, and that such justice exists only in the care of the court, I would hold that the parties are free to expand the scope of judicial review by providing for such expansion in their contract; that they may, for example, specifically provide that the arbitrators shall render their decision only in conformance with New Jersey law, and that such awards may be reversed either for mere errors of New Jersey law, substantial errors, or gross errors of New Jersey law and define therein what they mean by that. I doubt if many will. And if they do, they should abandon arbitration and go directly to the law courts.
   [Perini, 129 N.J. at 548-49 (Wilentz, C.J., concurring.]
   As stated in Commerce Bank v. DiMaria Const., 300 N.J. Super. 9, 19 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 76 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116, 118 S. Ct. 1053, 140 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1998): under the Tretina/Perini concurrence standard, "arbitrators have no obligation to follow the principles of law which would govern an action in a court of law."
   
   Perhaps recognizing the formidable hurdles attendant to overturning an arbitration award based upon mistakes of fact or law made by the arbitrator, appellants often contend that a constellation of errors allegedly made by an arbitrator demonstrate bias or partiality.
   
   An award of counsel fees to the prevailing party in an arbitration may be appropriate, as a way of providing complete relief, even though the arbitration agreement was silent on that issue. Commerce Bank v. DiMaria Const., 300 N.J. Super. 9, 19 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 76 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116, 118 S. Ct. 1053, 140 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1998), and High Voltage Eng'g Corp. v. Pride Solvents and Chem. Co. of N.J., Inc., 326 N.J. Super. 356, 363 (App. Div. 1999).



2. Law Lessons from ANDERSON v. ANDERSON (Appellate Division, A-2175-02T5, June 13, 2006, not approved for publication): The Appellate Court's review of a binding, non-appealable Arbitration award is limited and, barring corruption, fraud, undue means or a violation of the State's public policy, it cannot be set aside. In re Arbitration Between: Trentina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatric & Assocs., Inc., 135 N.J. 349, 358 (1994).



3. Return to General Topic Index

NOTE: If you believe that ANYTHING on this Webpage is misspelled, incomplete, inaccurate or downright wrong; or if a Link fails to link to its intended Webpage, please send me an Email, expressing your concern or opinion.

Also, please be mindful that THE INFORMATION AND SOURCES PROVIDED HEREIN MAY NOT BE ACCURATE OR COMPLETE -- YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON THIS INFORMATION.  No warranties, express or implied, are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information.

Also, please be aware that the information on this Webpage DOES NOT constitute LEGAL ADVICE, which advice will only be given in PRIVATE CONSULTATION, after entering into an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, and the execution of a WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT. Also, simply sending to me an email or providing information to me does NOT create an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP   -- if you wish to retain me as your attorney or mediator, you are welcome to call me at (908)486-2200, or to Email me, to schedule an appointment.

Links

Linked sites are NOT under the control of the Paul G. Kostro, A Professional Corporation or Paul G. Kostro, Esq. (the "Authors") and the Authors are NOT responsible for the content of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site.

The Authors do NOT endorse websites, companies or entities to which links are provided.

The Authors reserve the right to terminate any link at any time.

If you decide to access any of the third party sites linked to, you do so entirely AT YOUR OWN RISK.

© Paul G. Kostro, Esq. 2005