Matter of Sahni v Prudential Equity Group, Inc NY Slip Op 30597(U) December 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /06

Similar documents
Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. v High Point Prop. & Cas. Co NY Slip Op 33786(U) June 16, 2014 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number:

Selvi Singapore Trading PTE Ltd. v Harris Freeman Asia Ltd NY Slip Op 31554(U) July 14, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Case 1:14-cv LGS Document 15 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 6. : Petitioner, : : : :

Matter of Board of Educ. of the William Floyd Union Free School Dist. v Lemay 2007 NY Slip Op 34309(U) September 27, 2007 Supreme Court, Suffolk

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc NY Slip Op 30017(U) January 5, 2016 Supreme Court, New York

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture, P.C NY Slip Op 32290(U) November 24, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015

Grynberg v BP Exploration Operating Ltd NY Slip Op 33401(U) December 8, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2004 Judge:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO CPLR 7511

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C NY Slip Op 32138(U) August 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Joseph Gunnar & Co., LLC v Rice 2015 NY Slip Op 30233(U) February 13, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Eileen A.

Case 2:11-mc VAR-MKM Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Matter of Williams v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance 2018 NY Slip Op 32960(U) November 13, 2018 Supreme Court, New York

CM Growth Capital Partners v Penn 2018 NY Slip Op 33430(U) January 2, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: O.

Case 2:16-cv Document 20 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Matter of Rice Sec., LLC v Nevel 2014 NY Slip Op 30487(U) February 26, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Melvin L.

Kureha Am., LLC (U.S.A.) v Mercer Tech., Inc. (U.S.A.) 2016 NY Slip Op 30361(U) February 23, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Kahan Jewelry Corp. v First Class Trading, L.P NY Slip Op 30039(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018

Case 1:15-cv LEK-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 458 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Kaplan v Conway & Conway 2018 NY Slip Op 32178(U) September 4, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /17 Judge: Frank P.

Spain-Brandon v New York City Dept. of Educ NY Slip Op 33268(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017

Tamaso v Amica Mut. Ins. Co NY Slip Op 30053(U) January 2, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Karen B.

Case: 5:10-cv SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Excel Surgery Ctr., LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33351(U) December 21, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018

Barbizon (2007) Group Ltd. v Barbizon/63 Condominium 2016 NY Slip Op 31973(U) October 17, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Arbitration vs. Litigation

Case 3:09-cv B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Matter of Social Serv. Empls. Union, Local 371, Dist. Council 37, AFSCME v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., Harlem Hosp. Ctr.

Indo-Med Commodities, Inc. v Wisell 2014 NY Slip Op 33918(U) September 29, 2014 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /14 Judge: F.

Baker v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc NY Slip Op 30596(U) March 9, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2007

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Case 8:15-cv PWG Document 34 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 6. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

Jakubiak v New York City Dept. of Bldgs NY Slip Op 32516(U) October 15, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge:

S17G1097. BROWN et al. v. RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC. After RAC Acceptance East, LLC swore out a warrant for Mira Brown s

OCS Dev. Group, LLC v Midtown Four Stones LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30129(U) January 11, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018

Matter of DD Mfg. NV v Aloni Diamonds, Ltd NY Slip Op 32107(U) August 20, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Joan

Peter R. Friedman, Ltd. v Tishman Speyer Hudson LP 2010 NY Slip Op 33806(U) March 18, 2010 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2009 Judge:

Matter of Wear v Forex Capital Mkts. LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 30389(U) February 17, 2011 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Saliann

Case 4:17-cv Document 21 Filed in TXSD on 11/21/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER

Werse v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 33390(U) December 20, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: John J.

Case 1:10-cv UU Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Cohen v Kachroo 2013 NY Slip Op 30416(U) February 22, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Eileen A.

Matter of Lowengrub v Cyber-Struct Gen. Contr., Inc NY Slip Op 30002(U) March 6, 2007 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH

IQVIA RDS Inc. v Eisai Co. Ltd 2018 NY Slip Op 32923(U) November 14, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Barry

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION CITYWIDE TESTING AND INSPECTION INC. NO CA-0018 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

Matter of Kozlowski v New York State Bd. of Parole 2013 NY Slip Op 30265(U) February 5, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge:

Power v O'Brien 2019 NY Slip Op 30066(U) January 8, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Carol R.

Larsen & Toubro Limited v Millenium Management, Inc NY Slip Op 30163(U) July 21, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Kostkowicz v Roxy Roller Rink, Inc NY Slip Op 31245(U) May 6, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /05 Judge: Debra A.

Matter of Duraku v Tishman Speyer Props., LP 2014 NY Slip Op 31450(U) June 3, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge:

Siegel v Engel Burman Senior Hous. at E. Meadow, LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33833(U) October 21, 2010 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 6709/09 Judge:

Scaglione v Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc NY Slip Op 33727(U) April 27, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Orin R.

Matter of Hartford v City of New York 2010 NY Slip Op 32143(U) August 10, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Eileen

Golden v Lininger 2010 NY Slip Op 32187(U) August 16, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Jane S. Solomon Republished

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge:

Tillage Commodities Fund, L.P. v SS&C Tech., Inc NY Slip Op 32586(U) December 22, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dukuly v Harlem Ctr., LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 32433(U) August 11, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Republished from

46th St. Dev., LLC v Marsh USA Inc NY Slip Op 33888(U) August 15, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Eileen

PLACER COUNTY ARBITRATION PROGRAM REQUEST TO ARBITRATE AND AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE

Matter of RBC Capital Mkts. Corp. v Bittner 2011 NY Slip Op 31231(U) May 9, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge:

FCS Group, LLC v Chica 2018 NY Slip Op 33433(U) November 5, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /18 Judge: Leonard Livote Cases

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Caso v Delrosario 2016 NY Slip Op 32958(U) June 20, 2016 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 60219/2014 Judge: Lawrence H.

Paradigm Credit Corp. v Zimmerman 2013 NY Slip Op 31915(U) July 23, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished

Case 8:15-cv GJH Document 12 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 6. SOllt!leTII Division

Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck, P.C. v Basch 2017 NY Slip Op 30166(U) January 26, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Chubb Ins. Co. v GEICO Ins. Co.

Kellman v Whyte 2013 NY Slip Op 32938(U) November 15, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted

The Law Offs. of Ira L. Slade, P.C. v Singer 2018 NY Slip Op 33179(U) December 10, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018

Savings Deposit Ins. Fund of Turkey v SeaRock Holdings LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30167(U) January 14, 2019 Supreme Court, New York Court Docket Number:

Abroon v Gurwin Home Care Agency, Inc NY Slip Op 31534(U) May 30, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 22249/10 Judge: Roy S.

Matter of Crockwell v NYC Dept. of Bldgs NY Slip Op 30107(U) January 14, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge:

Devlin v Mendes & Mount, LLP 2011 NY Slip Op 33823(U) July 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31433/10 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted

Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R.

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Excel Surgery Ctr., LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33260(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018

Matter of Port Auth. Field Supervisors Assoc. v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 33337(U) December 15, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County

Case 2:14-cv LMA-MBN Document 167 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Merrill Lynch Bus. v Trataros Constr. Inc NY Slip Op 30370(U) May 28, 2004 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2003 Judge:

Matrisciano v Metropolitan Transp. Auth NY Slip Op 33435(U) December 24, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge:

Zadar Universal Corp. v Lemonis 2018 NY Slip Op 33125(U) November 26, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Gerald

Cayne v Lebenthal 2019 NY Slip Op 30042(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: Robert R.

Allstate Ins. Co. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am NY Slip Op 30973(U) April 11, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Richard

TITLE 8. EMPLOYMENT CHAPTER 1. EMPLOYEE REVIEW CODE

Ariale v City of New York 2019 NY Slip Op 30629(U) March 8, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Lyle E.

Defendant Mitchell Stern (Stern) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary

Detectives' Endowment Assn., Inc. v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 32873(U) November 20, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

McNair v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank President 2013 NY Slip Op 31655(U) July 17, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge:

Chiffert v Kwiat 2010 NY Slip Op 33821(U) June 4, 2010 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood Cases posted with

Defending Actions for the Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in New York: Developments and Strategic Considerations

American Express Centurion Bank v Charlot 2010 NY Slip Op 32116(U) July 29, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: Judge: Judith J.

Matter of Steinberg-Fisher v North Shore Towers Apts., Inc NY Slip Op 33107(U) August 21, 2014 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number:

Hirschfeld v Czaja 2013 NY Slip Op 32756(U) October 25, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted

NFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes

Mejer v Met Life 2012 NY Slip Op 33288(U) January 13, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Emily Jane Goodman Cases posted with a

2007 PA Super 177. OPINION BY DANIELS, J.: Filed: June 11, These are Consolidated Appeals from the Order of the lower court

National Coll. Student Loan Trust v J.P. Morgan Chase 2015 NY Slip Op 31780(U) September 21, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket

Citimortgage, Inc. v Sirota 2013 NY Slip Op 31659(U) July 22, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 12243/2011 Judge: Allan B.

Carmody v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 33201(U) December 12, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Alexander M.

Transcription:

Matter of Sahni v Prudential Equity Group, Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 30597(U) December 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 107536/06 Judge: Walter B. Tolub Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1] Sequence Number : 00 CONFIRM AWARD I - -- I Notice of Motlonl Order to Show Cause - Affidavirs - Exhibits... Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: $ Yes NO Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion Check one: 8 FINAL DISPOSITION NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: i? DONOTPOST fl REFERENCE

[* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : IAS PART 15 -- - - - fl-- X In the Matter of the Arbitration Between CHARANJIT SAHNI, HARPREET SAHNI, NASIMANG ENTERPRISES AW/NASIMANG TRUST by NAND SAHNI and CHARANJIT SAHNI, CHARANJIT SAHNI CUSTODIAN ANGAD SAHNI UTMA, and CHARANJIT SAHNI CUSTODIAN SIMRAN SAHNI UTMA, - against - Petitioner, Index No. 107536/06 PRUDENTIAL EQUITY GROUP, INC., WALTER TOLUB, J. : Petitioners move, pursuant to CPLR article 75, to confirm the award of arbitrators, dated May 18, 2006, against respondent, Prudential Equity Group, LLC, s/h/a Prudential Equity Group, Inc. ( Prudential ). Respondent cross-moves to dismiss the petition and cross petition vacate a portion of the award. BACKGROUND Petitioners, former customers of Prudential, brought claims against Prudential and four of Its employees arising out of alleged multimillion dollar securities losses. Petitioners Charanjit Sahni and Harpreet Sahni are husband and wife, and Angad Sahni and Simran Sahni (collectively, the Sahni family ) are their children. Petitioner Nasimang Enterprises AVV/Nasimang Trust ( Nasimang Trust ) is owned by the Sahni family. Charanjit Sahni, Harpreet Sahni, and Nand Sahni, Charanjit s mother, are

[* 3] its officers. Prudential is a registered broker-dealer and now part of Wachovia Securities. Petitioners maintained that in February 2000, they transferred approximately $23 million to Prudential for trading, and that, within a few months, they experienced losses in excess of $21 million. They asserted claims against Prudential for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable trading, lack of supervision, and other violations of securities practices in connection with their alleged losses. On April 16, 2002, petitioners signed a written agreement consenting to submit their claims against Prudential to binding arbitration. Prudential entered into a si.milas agreement on June 21, 2002. At the start of the arbitration proceeding, petitioners withdrew the claims against two of the Prudential employees. The proceeding encompassed more than 40 days of hearings over a period of 2% years, at which dozens of witnesses testified and thousands of exhibits were introduced. Petitioners attempted to portray Charanjit Sahni as an unsophisticated investor whose accounts were ruthlessly traded by a Prudential broker without adequate supervision. However, Prudential tried to depict him as an investor who maintained full control of h is family's accounts and directed all trading modalities, including stock selection and strategy. 2

[* 4] After evaluating the evidence, the panel of arbitrators dismissed the claims against the two remaining Prudential employees, and determined that the responsibility for the investment losses should be shared. Thus, the panel issued an award, dated May 18, 2006, requiring Prudential to pay the sum of $11,830,516, plus fees, to petitioners. In particular, the award required Prudential to pay $141,897, plus interest, to Simran Sahni; $472,619, plus interest, to Angad Sahni; $816,000, plus interest, to Charanjit Sahni and Harpreet Sahni; and $10.4 million, plus interest, to Nasimang Trust. The arbitrators questioned petitioners' failure to name their broker, Mitesh Shere, as a respondent, and concluded t hat Charanjit Sahni and Mitesh Shere "were in effect 'partners' in the loose sense of the term i n trading the accounts and relied on each other constantly." The arbitrators also noted that the nature of the partner relationship was evidenced by "the tremendous volume of phone traffic between the two and credible testimony that Sahni was virtually a fixture at t he branch office" and "in the opening account documentation at [Prudential] granting Shere trading authority, and which was crafted by Shere and Sahni - perhaps deliberately - so that Prudential could not achieve the appropriate level of supervision required of such discretionary accounts" (Award, Notice of Petition, Exh A). The arbitrators further stated: At the same time, this close and obviously personal relationship gave branch personnel 3

[* 5] the false impression that Sahni was entirely at home with investments and markets and the trading strategies, including the heavy use of margin he was employing.... This sense of security, however rational, was misplaced. If, as it appears, Sahni was in the office constantly, it would have required no Herculean effort for the branch manager or operations manager to visit with him, find out the kind of business he and Sherc were doing, and get direct confirmation that there were no difficulties. This apparently was never done in depth. Documents from a firm where Sahni had had accounts previously amply demonstrate the kinds of memorialization of client contact: sorely lacking here. (id.). A5 such, the arbitrators concluded that "responsibility for managing the accounts were shared by Shere and Sahni and that, Prudential as the ultimate party responsible and Shere's employer, should bear approximately half of the investment losses that occurred in the Nasimang and joint accounts" (id.). As to the Sahni children's custodial accounts, the arbitrators determined that although Prudential acted in accordance with firm policy and written guidelines, it nevertheless facilitated Sahni's raiding of the custodial accounts to cover margin calls in the main investment account. Thus, the arbitrators awarded full compensation for the custodial accounts, w ith interest. Petitioners now make a timely application to confirm the award. Respondent opposes the application seeking confirmation and cross-petitions to vacate so much of the award as imposes any 4

[* 6] liability on it. Petitioners, in turn, seek sanctions against Prudential for filing a frivolous cross petition. DISCUSSION The submission agreements state that the undersigned parties agree and understand that the arbitratinn will be conducted in accordance with the Constitution, By-Laws, Rules, Regulations, and/or Code of Arbitration Procedure of the sponsoring organization (Notice of Petition, Exhibits B, C, 3) I Both parties agree that the Court need not determine whether New York law or the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ) applies and the Court agrees to the extent that by either measure, the award must be confirmed. New York Law Under New York law, courts may vacate arbitration awards only in some limited circumstances, namely, when the award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator s power under CPLR 7511(b) (1)l (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]). A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator IUnder CPLR 7511 (b) (l), an arbitration award must be vacated if the court finds that a party to the proceeding was prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) an arbitrator exceeding h is power or so imperfectly executing it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made; or (4) the failure to follow procedure. 5

[* 7] simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one" (id.). "Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice" (id.). Federal Law The FAA, 9 USC 1, et seq., embodies a strong liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements, and provides for extremely limited judicial review of an arbitration award (see Matter of Arbitration No. AAA13-161-0511-85 Under Grain Arbitrtion Rules, 867 F.2d 130, 133 [Zd Cir 19891). A court may vacate an arbitration award only on the grounds set forth in 5 10 of the FAA,' OK on one of the several nonstatutory grounds, such as manifest disregard of the law or irrationality (see Uram v Garfinkel, 16 AD3d 317, 348 [l't Dept 20051). In this case, Prudential essentially argues that the award should be vacated on the grounds that it is irrational and in manifest disregard of applicable law. Spccifically, Prudential 29 USC 5 10(a) states, in part, that an arbitration award may be vacated: (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the sights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 6

[* 8] contends that the award is irrational since it imposes liability on Prudential, presumably under a theory of respondeat superior, without any finding of wrongful conduct on the part of the four Prudential employees against whom the claims were either withdrawn or dismissed. Contrary to Prudential s positton, however, the dismissal of all claims aqainst Prudential s employees does not render the arbitration award against Prudential irrational. There was an independent basis for finding liability against Prudential other than one qrounded upon the negligence of its employees (see Matter of Donald & Co. Secs., Inc. [Jones], 270 AD2d 56 [13 Dept 20001). As noted, the award states, among other things, that Prudential failed to adequately maintain and document client contact regarding the Sahni accounts or to get direct confirmation that these were no difficulties, and that Prudential facilitated tlhc raiding of the Sahni children s custodial account by Charanjit Sahni to cover margin calls in the main investment account. Thus, Prudential has not established that the award should be vacated for irrationality. Nor does Prudential demonstrate that the award reflects a manifest disregard of the l aw. A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award on the basis of manifest disregard of the law must show that the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it OK ignored it altogether, and that the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, 7

[* 9] explicit, and clearly applicable to the case" (Wallace v Buttar, 378 F3d 182, 189 [2d Cir 20041). Manifest disregard of the law "clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law" (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Bobker, 808 F2d 930, 933 [2d Cir 19861). The party challenging an award for manifest disregard of the law must demonstrate that the arbitrator actually knew about the relevant ru1.e of law (U.H. Blair & Co. v Gottdiener, 462 F3d 95, 111 [Zd Cir 20061). "[Tlhe term 'disregard' implies that the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it" (id., quoting DiRussa v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F3d 818, 821 [2d Cir 19971). Here, Prudential urges that the arbitrators disregarded NASD Rule 2330(f), which, in essence, prohibits brokerage firms from sharing directly or indirectly in the profits or losses in any account of a customer. However, Prudential offers nothing to establish that the arbitrators actually knew about the rule and chose to disregard it. The conclusory assertion that the average person qualified to be an arbitrator would know the particular rule is insufficient (D.H. B lair & Co. v Gottdiener, supra). Petitioners have made a timely application to confirm the arbitration award, and Prudential has failed to advance any valid grounds for modifying or vacating it. Thus, the award must be confirmed (Allstate Ins. Co. v Dental Health Care, P.C., 24 AD3d 437, 438 [2d Dept 20051). 8

[* 10] The request for sanctions is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is granted and the in favor of petitioners and against respondent is award rendered confirmed; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion to dismiss the petition and cross petition to vacate the award are denied; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that petitioners have judgment in t he amount of $11,830,516, plus interest at the rate of 9% pes annum from the date of May 18, 2006, as computed and taxed by the Clerk. Settle Order. Dated : I I,& ENTER : A 9