Giving petitioner's allegations concerning the evidence adduced at the arbitration hearing the benefit of every favorable inference, and accepting his claim that under no fair interpretation thereof could a finding be made that he, not his supervisor, inserted the unauthorized gratuity on the check, the petition fails to allege facts sufficient to show arbitrator partiality or other ground for vacating the award. Errors of fact or law do not demonstrate partiality (cf. Matter of Provenzano [MVAIC], 28 A.D.2d 528), or of any other ground for vacating an award (cf. Graniteville Co. v. First Natl. Trading Co., 179 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759). Here, the question put to the arbitrator was whether it was petitioner who inserted the gratuity on the check. His award clearly answered that question, finally disposed of the controversy and is not judicially reviewable for lack of evidentiary support. In any event, assuming there can be situations in which an inference of partiality is compelled by the nature of the evidence adduced at the arbitration hearing (cf. Matter of Torano [MVAIC], 19 A.D.2d 356, 358,affd 15 N.Y.2d 882), here the question submitted raised obvious credibility issues that, if resolved against petitioner, plainly warrant the award against him.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.