In a motion to vacate an arbitral award, the district court's order affirming the arbitrator's original award and vacating subsequent amendments to the award by the arbitrator is affirmed in part where the award did not manifestly disregard the law because the arbitrator's process of calculating damages constituted a reasonable interpretation of the legal distinction between the diminution-in-value damages that were available to respondent under the N.Y. U.C.C. and the consequential damages that were excluded by the parties' contracts. However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in applying the functus officio doctrine to the arbitrator, as the arbitrator was acting on the parties' petitions for reconsideration, and he revised the award pursuant to his interpretation of the arbitral rules under which the parties had agreed the arbitration would be conducted.
Argued: June 24, 2009
Decided: January 14, 2010
Opinion by Judge Livingston
Marc J. Goldstein, Marc J. Goldstein Litigation & Arbitration Chambers, New York, NY