A recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, has confirmed an arbitration award in favor of a subcontractor following a dispute over work performed on a major construction project. The ruling upholds an earlier Law Division order and denies attempts by the opposing party to alter or overturn the outcome, underscoring the strong deference courts give to arbitration decisions under state law.
The appeal was filed by Salvi Steel Fabricators, LLC after an April 4, 2025 order from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County confirmed an arbitration award for Niram, Inc., and denied Salvi’s cross-motion to modify or vacate that award.
According to court documents, Niram and Salvi entered into a subcontract in June 2021 for the fabrication and installation of structural steel at the Javits Lecture Center rehabilitation project at SUNY Stony Brook. The total contract price was $577,000. The subcontract specified that any disputes would be resolved through binding arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association in New Jersey under New York law.
The agreement included provisions outlining available damages if Salvi breached its obligations or if Niram terminated the contract. These sections allowed Niram to terminate for failure to provide sufficient skilled laborers or quality materials after proper notice and then recover completion costs from Salvi.
On May 1, 2023, Niram terminated its agreement with Salvi due to alleged failures in providing adequate labor and materials within schedule requirements. After giving notice and opportunity to cure as required by contract terms, Niram suspended further payments and proceeded to complete the work itself. At termination, Niram had paid $255,594.98 to Salvi.
Niram filed a demand for arbitration on February 2, 2024 with claims totaling $82,507.03 in damages resulting from Salvi’s alleged breach. In response, Salvi denied breaching the contract and counterclaimed for $372,405.10 it said remained unpaid for its work on the project.
Both parties agreed that instead of a detailed explanation from the arbitrator—a so-called “reasoned award”—the arbitrator would issue only a “standard award” stating conclusions without rationale or calculation details. Over six days of hearings involving exhibits and witness testimony but no verbatim record kept, both sides presented their arguments and damage summaries: Niram ultimately claimed $110,838.23 including completion costs; Salvi sought $301,546.44 plus additional amounts for change orders.
On January 4, 2025, the arbitrator awarded Niram $435,369 “for back charges and costs to complete,” while denying any recovery to Salvi on its counterclaims because “the payments by and credits due to [Niram] exceed[ed] the subcontract amount.” Neither party received interest or attorney fees; administrative fees were assigned as incurred.
Salvi requested modification of this outcome from the arbitrator—arguing it conflicted with both contractual terms and internal logic—but this request was denied on grounds that there were “no appropriate grounds” for modification.
Niram then moved in court to confirm the award; Salvi opposed this motion with requests either to vacate or modify it based on claims that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under their agreement and failed properly to account for credits owed under contract provisions.
In confirming the award and denying all relief sought by Salvi on April 4, 2025—including its cross-motion—the trial judge found that all issues raised had been submitted during arbitration proceedings according to contractual procedures agreed upon by both parties. The judge also reviewed statutory bases for modifying or vacating such awards under New Jersey’s Arbitration Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1 et seq.) but concluded none applied here given how narrowly such actions are permitted under state law.
On appeal before Judges Mayer and Vanek at the Appellate Division (Docket No. A-2600-24), these findings were affirmed after consideration of legal standards emphasizing minimal judicial interference with arbitral decisions except where fraud or similar wrongdoing is proven—or where strictly defined mistakes exist as set out in statute.
The opinion notes: “Because of the strong judicial presumption in favor of validity of an arbitral award,” parties seeking reversal bear “a heavy burden.” In this case—where both sides agreed not to require reasoning behind calculations—the court declined speculation about how figures were reached: “Perhaps had there been [a] longer form version … it may have clarified … how [the arbitrator] reached those numbers.”
Ultimately finding no evidence that contractual remedies were disregarded nor any statutory basis met for altering results already determined through agreed-upon procedures—the appellate panel affirmed confirmation of Niram’s award against Salvi Steel Fabricators.
Attorneys involved included Charles P. Kelly IV and Bradley Latino (Kelly Law PC) representing appellant Salvi Steel Fabricators; Raymond G. Chow represented respondent Niram Inc.. The case was decided without publication precedent as Docket No. A-2600-24.
Source: A260024_Niram_Inc_v_Salvi_Steel_Fabricators_LLC_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
