Regarding arbitration decisions, which statement is true?

• A. Arbitration decisions are final and binding, but either party may request a de novo review by the courts
• B. Arbitration decisions can be appealed on the merits to the state court in every case
• C. Arbitration decisions require court approval to be enforceable
• D. Arbitration decisions cannot be reviewed by any court under any circumstances

Answer: (A)

Arbitration results are meant to be a final and binding resolution, with the courts stepping in only for limited oversight. The idea behind the statement is that while the award settles the dispute, either party can seek court involvement to review the award, rather than allowing a full merits appeal in the state courts. In practice, this means the court won’t re‑try the case, but it can be asked to vacate or modify the award on specific grounds, or to confirm the award so it becomes enforceable as a judgment. This framing matches the way NY practice treats arbitration: the decision is binding, and court review is available in a constrained fashion, rather than an ordinary appeal on the merits. The other choices overstate or misstate the relationship between arbitration and court review: there isn’t an automatic merits appeal in every case, enforcement requires a court-confirmed judgment, and some (but not all) court review is available rather than none.