## Facts

- A landlord–tenant rent dispute was submitted by agreement to arbitration before a Jewish religious tribunal (beth din).
- During the arbitration, the tenant sought to have an attorney present.
- The tribunal permitted counsel to attend the first meeting only after repeated requests and limited counsel’s participation.
- Subsequent written notices instructed the tenant not to bring counsel to later sessions.
- The tribunal did not permit the tenant’s side to present evidence or testimony and did not allow cross-examination.
- The tribunal issued an award in favor of the landlord.
- The landlord petitioned in Supreme Court, Kings County to confirm the award; the tenant cross-petitioned to vacate.
- The Supreme Court denied confirmation and vacated the award; the landlord appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration award may be confirmed when the arbitrators failed to comply with CPLR 7506 by effectively denying a party representation by counsel and the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
2. Whether such procedural failures require vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iv) as a failure to follow statutory procedure that prejudiced a party’s rights.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment vacating the award and denying confirmation, with costs.
- The court held the tribunal’s noncompliance with CPLR 7506 was fatal to confirmation.
- The court concluded that restricting and later excluding counsel, and barring evidence and cross-examination, required vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iv).

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 7506(a) grants parties in arbitration the right to be represented by an attorney, and that right may not be waived.
- CPLR 7506(d) entitles parties to be heard, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses.
- Under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iv), an award must be vacated where arbitrators fail to follow CPLR arbitration procedure and a party’s rights are prejudiced.
- Arbitration conducted by a religious tribunal, when subject to New York arbitration law, must comply with CPLR 7506 procedural protections.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed vacatur of the arbitral award because the tribunal failed to provide the statutory safeguards required in New York arbitration—most importantly, the nonwaivable right to counsel and the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine—making the award incapable of confirmation.


Matter of Mikel v. Scharf, 85 A.D.2d 604, 444 N.Y.S.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1981)