Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. v. DONALD NETTER
(AC 46918)
Cradle, C. J., and Suarez and Palmer, Js.

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the plain-
tiff’s application to confirm a certain arbitration award and denying the
defendant’s application to vacate the award. The court had denied the plain-
tiff’s application to confirm a previous arbitration award in this dispute
regarding unpaid legal fees. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court
improperly affirmed the second arbitration award in its entirety because
the present proceeding was barred by the first arbitration proceeding on
the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Held:

This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court
improperly confirmed the second arbitration award in its entirety because
the second arbitration was barred by the first arbitration under the doctrines
of collateral estoppel and res judicata, as the defendant failed to preserve
this claim in the trial court and the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res
judicata do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.

The trial court properly confirmed, as part of the second arbitration award,
an award of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for the first arbitration, as the
scope of the arbitration submission was unrestricted, the court’s review
of the arbitration award was limited by the statute (§ 52-418) governing
applications to vacate arbitration awards, and the defendant failed to assert
a recognized ground upon which to vacate the second arbitration award.
Argued September 11—officially released December 16, 2025

Procedural History

Application by the plaintiff to confirm an arbitration
award, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk,
where the defendant filed an application to vacate the
arbitration award; thereafter, the case was tried to the
court, Hon. John F. Kavanewsky, Jr., judge trial ref-
eree; judgment granting the plaintiff’s application to
confirm the arbitration award and denying the defen-
dant’s application to vacate the arbitration award, from
which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Kenneth A. Votre, for the appellant (defendant).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

Alexander J. Trembicki, with whom were Robert C.
E. Laney and, on the brief, Ryan V. Nobile, for the
appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

CRADLE, C. J. In this appeal arising from a dispute
regarding unpaid legal fees, the defendant, Donald Net-
ter, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, ren-
dered in favor of the plaintiff, Cohen and Wolf, P.C.,
granting the plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitra-
tion award and denying the defendant’s application to
vacate the arbitration award. On appeal, the defendant
claims that the court improperly (1) confirmed the
award in its entirety because the present proceeding is
barred by a previous arbitration proceeding under the
doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and
(2) confirmed, as part of the award, the award of the
plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and expenses for the previous
arbitration. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed facts, as found by the arbi-
tration panel or the trial court, and procedural history
are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff
is a law firm whose partners and associates are admitted
to practice law in the state of Connecticut. On August
31, 2017, the parties signed a retainer agreement, pursu-
ant to which the defendant retained the plaintiff to
represent him in an ongoing marital dissolution action.
Pursuant to the retainer agreement, the parties agreed
that ‘‘[a]ny controversy, claim or dispute . . . other
than the [plaintiff’s] right and the [defendant’s] right to
terminate the [plaintiff’s] representation of the [defen-
dant] . . . shall be resolved by final and binding arbi-
tration by two arbitrators . . . .’’ In January, 2019, the
court, M. Moore, J., granted a motion filed by the plain-
tiff to withdraw its appearance in the dissolution action.
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

The plaintiff subsequently attempted to collect an
unpaid balance in the amount of $141,426.82 allegedly
owed to it by the defendant. On April 2, 2019, the plain-
tiff retained counsel. On April 30, 2019, the plaintiff filed
a demand with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) for arbitration (Arbitration I). On June 12, 2019,
an AAA administrator wrote to the parties acknowledg-
ing that their retainer agreement calls for two arbitra-
tors and asking the parties to ‘‘confirm in writing
whether they would like to waive the agreement . . .
and use only one arbitrator for this matter . . . .’’ On
July 22, 2019, the defendant objected to the AAA’s sug-
gestion of a single arbitrator. Despite the defendant’s
objection, the AAA appointed a single arbitrator to arbi-
trate the parties’ dispute.1 A hearing was held on May
6, 2020, via videoconference, and, on May 27, 2020, the
arbitrator issued the Arbitration I award in favor of the
plaintiff. On June 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed with the
Superior Court an application to confirm the Arbitration
I award in accordance with General Statutes § 52-421
(a).2 On September 9, 2020, the defendant filed an appli-
cation to vacate the same award pursuant to General
Statutes § 52-418 (a).3 The defendant argued, among
1
By way of correspondence dated July 22, 2019, to the case administrator,
the defendant indicated that, ‘‘as [the defendant] believes that [the plaintiff]
is seeking a significant sum and [the defendant] is expected to seek a
counterclaim for a significant sum, it appears more appropriate to have more
than one arbitrator.’’ The defendant ultimately did not file a counterclaim
in Arbitration I.
2
General Statutes § 52-421 (a) provides, inter alia, that any party applying
for an order confirming an arbitration award shall file certain papers with
the clerk of court, including the award.
3
General Statutes § 52-418 (a) provides: ‘‘Upon the application of any
party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which
one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the
judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in
session, any judge thereof, shall make an order vacating the award if it
finds any of the following defects: (1) If the award has been procured by
corruption, fraud or undue means; (2) if there has been evident partiality
or corruption on the part of any arbitrator; (3) if the arbitrators have been
guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

other things, that the Arbitration I award should be
vacated because the arbitrator exceeded his authority
by proceeding as a sole arbitrator despite the retainer
agreement mandating two arbitrators and the defendant
not having waived that right.
On May 6, 2021, the court, Genuario, J., issued an
order denying the plaintiff’s application to confirm the
Arbitration I award. The court found that the defendant
had not waived his right to have the matter heard by two
arbitrators and instead asserted that right throughout
Arbitration I. On that basis, the court concluded that
the arbitrator incorrectly ‘‘determined that an [AAA]
administrator could decide to alter the manner in which
the parties had agreed to proceed in arbitration. This
determination exceeded [the arbitrator’s] power and
certainly exceeded the power of the administrator.’’
Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s application
to confirm the award.4
On August 27, 2021, the plaintiff filed a demand with
the AAA to commence the second arbitration of its fee
claim (Arbitration II). The AAA appointed Nyle K. Davey
and Robert J. Reeve (arbitration panel) to arbitrate the
dispute. On October 19, 2021, the defendant filed a
counterclaim and, on December 20, 2021, filed a revised
counterclaim to the plaintiff’s claim for fees, alleging,
inter alia, breach of contract based on the plaintiff’s
alleged ‘‘[improper] billing for approximately $80,000
cause shown or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the
controversy or of any other action by which the rights of any party have
been prejudiced; or (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so
imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the
subject matter submitted was not made.’’
4
The court did not issue an order with respect to the defendant’s applica-
tion to vacate the award. The parties disagree about the effect of the court’s
order denying an application to confirm the arbitration award without explic-
itly granting the application to vacate that award. For the reasons set forth
herein, however, the resolution of this disagreement is not necessary to our
resolution of this appeal.
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

of secretarial fees in violation of the agreement and
. . . [custom].’’5 Thereafter, as explained by the arbitra-
tion panel, the only issues before it ‘‘were (a) the [plain-
tiff’s] demand for unpaid invoiced fees for services,
attorney fees, interest, and [a]rbitration costs, all
related [to] its collection efforts in both arbitrations;
and (b) the [defendant’s] [c]ounterclaim . . . for
[b]reach of [c]ontract—[i]mproper [c]harges.’’
From September 26 through 29, 2022, the arbitration
panel convened an evidentiary hearing on these issues.
On December 20, 2022, the arbitration panel issued
an award in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of
$442,658.86, including unpaid invoiced bills, interest,
and attorney’s fees and arbitration costs for both arbi-
trations.6 The arbitration panel concluded that the plain-
tiff had met its burden of proving that the defendant
breached the retainer agreement and that it was entitled
to the unpaid legal fees. The arbitration panel also found
in favor of the plaintiff as to the defendant’s counter-
claim, concluding that the defendant ‘‘waived his con-
tractual right to dispute the invoices’’ because he did
not submit a written notice to the plaintiff indicating
that he was contesting those fees, as required by the
retainer agreement; did not meet his evidentiary burden;
and failed to demonstrate that the charges violated pub-
lic policy. The arbitration ‘‘[p]anel award[ed] the [plain-
tiff] a total of $141,426.82 of unpaid invoiced billed
amounts . . . interest in the amount of $59,325.00 for
the period April 2, 2019 to September 29, 2022 . . .
The defendant also asserted claims against the plaintiff, by way of its
5

revised counterclaim dated December 20, 2021, alleging professional negli-
gence, breach of contract based on the plaintiff’s agreement to proceed
with a single arbitrator in Arbitration I, and breach of confidentiality. The
arbitration panel rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on
those claims.
6
On February 7, 2023, the arbitration panel modified the award to correct
certain minor clerical, typographical, or computational errors. Those modifi-
cations are not at issue in this appeal.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

attorney’s fees in the amount of $193,061.38 and expenses
in the amount of $5,799.41 . . . and the costs of the
[a]rbitration in the amount of $43,046.25 . . . . There-
fore, the [arbitration] [p]anel award[ed] $442,658.86 in
damages based on the evidence presented at the hear-
ing.’’
On January 19, 2023, the defendant filed with the
Superior Court an application to vacate the award,
which he later amended to address the arbitration pan-
el’s modified award on February 27 and March 7, 2023.
In support of his application to vacate, the defendant
alleged that the arbitration panel was biased against
him; improperly prohibited him from conducting cer-
tain discovery to support his counterclaim; used the
incorrect base damage claim amount; improperly weighed
or considered evidence; erred by dismissing certain of
the defendant’s claims and granting summary judgment
in favor of the plaintiff; and improperly awarded the
plaintiff attorney’s fees and expenses for Arbitration I,
while not awarding the defendant his fees and expenses
for Arbitration I. On February 10, 2023, the plaintiff
filed an application to confirm the award. On April 27,
2023, the court, Hon. John F. Kavanewsky, Jr., judge
trial referee, held a hearing on the competing applica-
tions. At the hearing, the court requested that the parties
submit supplemental memoranda addressing ‘‘[t]o what
extent [the arbitration panel’s award of attorney’s fees
for Arbitration I] is reviewable, and how should it be
resolved by the court, to the extent that it is reviewable
as a matter of fact and law.’’ On May 11, 2023, the
parties submitted those supplemental memoranda.
On August 28, 2023, the court rendered judgment
granting the plaintiff’s application to confirm the arbi-
tration award and denying the defendant’s application
to vacate the award. The court concluded that ‘‘[t]he
defendant . . . woefully failed to substantiate any of
the material allegations of his application to vacate the
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

award’’ and thus did not meet his burden in establishing
that the award should be vacated under § 52-418 (a).
The court thereafter awarded the plaintiff the amount
of $455,139.58, which included the original award in
full plus an additional $12,480.72 in interest for the
period of November 29, 2022, through the date of the
judgment. The court also specifically affirmed the
award of attorney’s fees and expenses for Arbitration
I as part of the award. This appeal followed. Additional
facts and procedural history will be set forth as neces-
sary.
I
The defendant first claims that the court improperly
confirmed the award in its entirety because Arbitration
II was barred by Arbitration I under the doctrines of
collateral estoppel and res judicata.7 In response, the
plaintiff contends that the defendant has not preserved
this claim for appeal because he failed to raise it before
the trial court.8 We agree with the plaintiff.
Practice Book § 60-5 provides in relevant part that
‘‘[t]he court shall not be bound to consider a claim
unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subse-
quent to the trial. . . .’’ We have recognized that,
‘‘[b]ecause our review is limited to matters in the record,
we [also] will not address issues not decided by the
trial court. . . . The requirement that [a] claim be
7
We decline to address the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims
in Arbitration II and his claim concerning the arbitration panel’s award of
attorney’s fees and costs for Arbitration I were barred by the doctrine of
functus officio because the defendant raises these arguments for the first
time in his reply brief. See State v. Culbreath, 340 Conn. 167, 193 n.12, 263
A.3d 350 (2021) (‘‘it is well established that we consider an argument inade-
quately briefed when it is delineated only in the reply brief’’ (internal quota-
tion marks omitted)).
8
The plaintiff notes that the defendant did not raise the issues before the
arbitration panel, either. Because the defendant failed to raise these claims
before the trial court, we need not address his additional failure to raise
them before the arbitration panel.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

raised distinctly means that it must be so stated as to
bring to the attention of the court the precise matter
on which its decision is being asked. . . . The reason
for the rule is obvious: to permit a party to raise a claim
on appeal that has not been raised at trial—after it is
too late for the trial court . . . to address the claim—
would encourage trial by ambuscade, which is unfair
to both the trial court and the opposing party.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Elm City Local, CACP v.
New Haven, 230 Conn. App. 847, 861, 332 A.3d 1062,
cert. denied, 351 Conn. 921, 333 A.3d 104 (2025).
Here, although the defendant made several argu-
ments to the court in support of his application to vacate
the award, he never argued before the court that, under
the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel,
Arbitration I barred Arbitration II. Indeed, counsel for
the defendant conceded, at oral argument before this
court, that the defendant did not raise these res judicata
and collateral estoppel arguments before the trial court.
In his application to vacate the award, the defendant
raised the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estop-
pel only as a bar to the award of the plaintiff’s attorney’s
fees and expenses for Arbitration I, not as precluding
the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. Moreover, nowhere
in his application to vacate does the defendant suggest
that Arbitration II should not have occurred and, in
fact, the defendant fully and willingly participated in
the proceedings.
Despite the defendant’s concession that he did not
preserve his claim for review, counsel for the defendant
argued for the first time at oral argument before this
court that this court should nevertheless review his
res judicata claim because it implicates subject matter
jurisdiction, which cannot be waived.9 It is well settled,
9
Although appellate courts generally do not consider claims raised for
the first time at oral argument, we nevertheless address the defendant’s
argument because ‘‘subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created through
consent or waiver. . . . Once the question of lack of jurisdiction is raised,
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

10 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

however, that res judicata does not implicate subject
matter jurisdiction but, rather, is an affirmative defense
that must be specially pleaded.10 See M&T Bank v.
Lewis, 349 Conn. 9, 19 n.6, 312 A.3d 1040 (2024); see also
Practice Book § 10-50 (‘‘res judicata must be specially
pleaded’’). The defendant’s jurisdictional argument
therefore fails.11 Accordingly, we decline to review his
claim that Arbitration II was barred by Arbitration I
under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judi-
cata.
II
The defendant further claims that the court improp-
erly confirmed, as part of the Arbitration II award, the
award of attorney’s fees for Arbitration I.12 He argues
it must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) L. K. v. K. K., 226 Conn. App. 279, 287–88, 318
A.3d 243 (2024).
10
Counsel for the defendant did not argue that collateral estoppel impli-
cates subject matter jurisdiction. Like res judicata, collateral estoppel also
does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction. See M&T Bank v. Lewis, 349
Conn. 9, 19 n.6, 312 A.3d 1040 (2024).
11
The defendant further contends that the arbitration panel exceeded its
powers and the scope of the submission by considering the plaintiff’s claim
in Arbitration II because the retainer agreement and Connecticut law do
not permit a second arbitration of claims when the previous award has
not been explicitly vacated. We decline to address this claim because the
defendant did not raise it before the trial court except for in his May 11,
2023 supplemental memorandum in response to the court’s limited request
that the parties address ‘‘[t]o what extent [the arbitration panel’s award of
attorney’s fees for Arbitration I] is reviewable, and how should it be resolved
by the court, to the extent that it is reviewable as a matter of fact and law.’’
See Connex Credit Union v. Thibodeau, 208 Conn. App. 861, 872–74, 266
A.3d 930 (2021) (declining to review claim as it was unpreserved and lacking
adequate record where defendant first raised it in posttrial brief that was
filed simultaneously with plaintiff’s posttrial brief and where trial court’s
memorandum of decision did not address claim), appeal dismissed, 346
Conn. 708, 295 A.3d 416 (2023). In addition, the plaintiff did not have an
opportunity to respond to the claim and the court never addressed the claim
in its decision. Accordingly, we decline to review this claim.
12
The defendant also claims that the court abused its discretion when it
‘‘expressly awarded supplemental attorney’s fees’’ for Arbitration I and the
subsequent application to confirm. The defendant’s argument appears to be
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

that the award is contrary to the ruling of the court,
Genuario, J., denying the plaintiff’s application to con-
firm the Arbitration I award and that ‘‘[i]t [was] an abuse
of discretion to award attorney’s fees for claims that
were lost by the [plaintiff], and which are completely
severable from the remainder of the claim.’’ The plaintiff
contends that both this court’s and the trial court’s
ability to review an arbitration award is limited under
§ 52-418 and that the defendant failed to demonstrate
any recognized ground on which the Arbitration II
award can be vacated. We agree with the plaintiff.

The following additional undisputed facts, as found
by the arbitration panel and the trial court, and proce-
dural history are necessary for the resolution of this
claim. In setting forth its calculation of the Arbitration
II award, the arbitration panel specifically awarded the
plaintiff attorney’s fees and expenses dating back to
when the plaintiff first retained counsel in April, 2019,
and therefore included costs associated with Arbitra-
tion I in its award. The arbitration panel reasoned that
‘‘[t]he [retainer] [a]greement provides that the [plaintiff]
‘shall be entitled to recover from the [defendant] the
reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by
the [plaintiff] in connection with [its] collection
efforts.’ ’’ The arbitration panel further noted that ‘‘[a]ny
costs to be borne by the [defendant] can be traced to
the choices that he made during the life of the [retainer]
[a]greement, immediately thereafter, and over the
lengthy course of the [plaintiff’s] effort to secure collec-
tion of the unpaid fees.’’
based on his incorrect belief that the court independently awarded the
plaintiff attorney’s fees for Arbitration I. The court, however, did not do so.
Rather, the court confirmed the amount the arbitration panel awarded. To
the extent the defendant is referring to the court’s October 2, 2023 award
of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees covering the period of December 20, 2022,
through August 31, 2023, we decline to review this claim because the defen-
dant has not appealed the October 2, 2023 order.
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

Before the trial court, the defendant challenged the
award of attorney’s fees and expenses for Arbitration
I. To aid its resolution of this issue, the court, Hon.
John F. Kavanewsky, Jr., judge trial referee, asked the
parties to submit supplemental memoranda addressing
the court’s ability to review the award of attorney’s
fees and expenses for Arbitration I, and how the court
should resolve it, to the extent it was reviewable. In
his memorandum, the defendant argued that these
attorney’s fees and expenses were unreasonable under
the retainer agreement and ‘‘estopped under collateral
estoppel and res judicata . . . .’’ The defendant further
argued that the award was inconsistent with the order
of the court, Genuario, J., denying the application to
confirm the Arbitration I award because the court
‘‘squarely blamed’’ the plaintiff for proceeding before
the sole arbitrator in violation of the defendant’s rights
under the retainer agreement. In its memorandum, the
plaintiff argued that the award was within the scope of
the parties’ unrestricted submission to the arbitration
panel as ‘‘reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses’’ and
that the defendant had not shown any proper ground
on which the court could vacate the award. Accordingly,
the plaintiff claimed that the court lacked the authority
to disturb the arbitration panel’s award. The court con-
firmed the award, also specifically including the award
of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and expenses from Arbi-
tration I as part of the arbitration panel’s ‘‘thoughtful,
well reasoned decision.’’ In this court, the defendant
renews his challenge to the award of fees and costs
incurred in Arbitration I as part of the award in Arbitra-
tion II.
The principles governing judicial review of arbitra-
tion awards on appeal are well settled. ‘‘[A]rbitration
is a creature of contract and the parties themselves, by
the terms of their submission, define the powers of
the arbitrators.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

ARVYS Protein, Inc. v. A/F Protein, Inc., 219 Conn.
App. 20, 28–29, 293 A.3d 899, cert. denied, 347 Conn.
905, 297 A.3d 198 (2023). Accordingly, ‘‘[j]udicial review
of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined. . . . When
the parties agree to arbitration and establish the author-
ity of the arbitrator through the terms of their submis-
sion, the extent of our judicial review of the award is
delineated by the scope of the parties’ agreement. . . .
Since the parties consent to arbitration, and have full
control over the issues to be arbitrated, a court will
make every reasonable presumption in favor of the
arbitration award and the arbitrator’s acts and proceed-
ings. . . . When the scope of the submission is
unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de
novo review even for errors of law so long as the award
conforms to the submission.’’ (Citations omitted;
emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local
442, 232 Conn. App. 45, 55–56, 336 A.3d 115, cert.
denied, 352 Conn. 902, 335 A.3d 65 (2025).
Here, the court found, and the parties do not contest,
that the scope of the submission was unrestricted. ‘‘[I]n
the case of an unrestricted submission, we have . . .
recognized three grounds for vacating an award: (1)
the award rules on the constitutionality of a statute . . .
(2) the award violates clear public policy . . . [and]
(3) the award contravenes one or more of the statutory
proscriptions of § 52-418.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Toland v. Toland, 179 Conn. App. 800, 810,
182 A.3d 651, cert. denied, 328 Conn. 935, 183 A.3d 1174
(2018). As previously set forth in this opinion, § 52-418
provides in relevant part that an arbitration award can
only be vacated in limited circumstances, namely, ‘‘(1)
[i]f the award has been procured by corruption, fraud
or undue means; (2) if there has been evident partiality
or corruption on the part of any arbitrator; (3) if the
arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct in refusing
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown
or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material
to the controversy or of any other action by which the
rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) if the
arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imper-
fectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite
award upon the subject matter submitted was not
made.’’ General Statutes § 52-418 (a). The party chal-
lenging the award must do more than demonstrate his
or her disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation
and application of law. Rather, he or she ‘‘bears the
burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate
a violation of . . . § 52-418.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Toland v. Toland, supra, 817.
On appeal to this court, the defendant contends that
the award of attorney’s fees and expenses for Arbitra-
tion I was ‘‘barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel’’
and ‘‘contrary to the law of the case’’ established by
the order of the trial court, Genuario, J., denying the
plaintiff’s application to confirm the Arbitration I
award. He further argues that ‘‘[i]t [was] an abuse of
discretion to award attorney’s fees for claims that were
lost by the [plaintiff], and which are completely sever-
able from the remainder of the claim.’’ The defendant
does not specify upon which of the three recognized
grounds the court should have vacated the arbitration
panel’s award of attorney’s fees for Arbitration I, nor
does he explain how the relevant legal principles for
vacating arbitration awards would apply to the facts of
this case. Instead, he merely claims that the award is
inconsistent with certain common-law principles that
do fall within the narrow purview of § 52-418. In so
arguing, the defendant ignores the principle that courts
cannot review an arbitration award made pursuant to
an unrestricted submission for errors of law so long
as the award conforms to the submission, as is the
case here.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

The award of attorney’s fees and expenses associated
with Arbitration I is not based solely on the plaintiff’s
status as the successful party in Arbitration II. Rather,
the arbitration panel’s decision indicates that it awarded
the plaintiff these costs, in part, on the basis of its
interpretation of what constituted ‘‘reasonable attor-
ney’s fees and expenses incurred by the [plaintiff] in
connection with [its] collection efforts’’ under the
retainer agreement. Therefore, even assuming that the
defendant is correct that the Arbitration I costs could
not be considered ‘‘reasonable,’’ this court still could
not vacate the award because ‘‘[m]isinterpretation of
contractual language, no matter how clear, is within
the arbitrator’s powers; only a decision to ignore or
supersede language conceded to be binding allows a
court to vacate the award.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp., 348 Conn.
152, 187–88, 302 A.3d 850 (2023), cert. denied, U.S.
, 144 S. Ct. 2520, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1200 (2024). The
defendant has never claimed that the arbitration panel
chose to bypass binding contractual language, asserting
instead his disagreement with the reasoning and result
of the arbitration panel. Such an argument fails to fur-
nish a valid basis to disturb an arbitration panel’s award
pursuant to an unrestricted submission.
Accordingly, because the defendant has failed to
assert a recognized ground upon which to vacate the
arbitration panel’s award, his claim amounts to nothing
more than his disagreement with the arbitration panel’s
application of law and final determination.13 His claim
therefore fails.
13
The defendant also claims that the court improperly ‘‘precluded [him]
. . . from proffering documentary evidence because it was not uploaded
as an exhibit.’’ The defendant fails, however, to meaningfully discuss the
excluded exhibits or to explain how their admission would have changed
the court’s conclusion. Accordingly, we decline to review this claim as
inadequately briefed. See Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 200 Conn.
App. 852, 864, 241 A.3d 706 (2020) (declining to review challenge to trial
court’s evidentiary ruling as inadequately briefed where plaintiff did not
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter

The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

explain how exclusion of evidence affected final result), cert. denied, 336
Conn. 909, 244 A.3d 562 (2021).