The question of the legality of the parties' agreement was properly before the arbitrator who had a sound basis for finding that the agreement was one to sell a law practice and was violative of the ethical prohibition against dividing fees (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 [ 22 NYCRR 1200.12]). It is only where an arbitrator seeks to enforce a contract that is against public policy or otherwise illegal that a court will interfere with the arbitrator's powers (Matter of Port Wash. Union Free School Dist. v Port Wash. Teachers Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 411, 417-418; Matter of Peckerman v D D Assocs., 165 A.D.2d 289, 296).
Nor did respondent's commencement of a declaratory judgment action in which he argued that the question of illegality should be decided by the courts and not the arbitrator constitute a waiver of his right to assert illegality before the arbitrator.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.