Why courts rarely revisit an award
Courts in New York, and federal courts applying the Federal Arbitration Act, give arbitration awards strong deference. An award is generally not vacated because the arbitrator got the facts wrong or misapplied the law. The recognized grounds go to the integrity of the process, such as an arbitrator's partiality or a decision that goes beyond the authority the parties gave, rather than to whether the result was correct. Whether federal or state law governs the motion, and which court should hear it, can depend on the contract and the nature of the dispute. Public policy arguments exist in limited situations but are difficult to sustain.
Deadlines and the other side's move
A motion to vacate has to be filed within a short period after the award is delivered, and missing that window usually ends the challenge. Meanwhile, the prevailing party may move to confirm the award and turn it into a court judgment, and a challenge raised for the first time in response to that motion may come too late. Gather the arbitration agreement, the full record, including transcripts and exhibits, the award itself, and every communication with the arbitrator or the administering organization. Disclosures the arbitrator made, or failed to make, about relationships with the parties or their lawyers can matter.
Deciding whether to proceed
We review the award and the record to see whether any recognized ground realistically applies, and we tell you plainly if we do not see one. Some arbitration rules allow a request to the arbitrator to correct clerical or computational errors, which may solve a narrower problem. Settlement may still be possible, particularly while a confirmation motion is pending. If the award involves a foreign party, international conventions may change the analysis. Vacating an arbitration award is a narrow remedy, and the decision to try should weigh the cost against what a realistic challenge could achieve.
