The opinion
Kahn, J.
(concurring). I agree that Supreme Court correctly vacated the award based on evident partiality. I also concur in the result reached by the plurality that the arbitration may not be referred to another forum, but I do so on different grounds.
This arbitration is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) ( 9 USC § 1 et seq.), and the substantial body of case law under the FAA holding that negotiated arbitration agreements must be judicially enforced according to their terms (Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 US 468, 476 [1989]), in the absence of an established ground for setting such agreements aside, such as fraud, duress, coercion or unconscionability (Matter of Cullman Ventures [Conk], 252 AD2d 222, 228 [1st Dept 1998], citing Matter of Salvano v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 85 NY2d 173, 181-182 [1995]). The duty of courts in promoting the goal of the FAA is to “ ‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms” (Salvano at 181), even when they appear to be unwise.
Here, the conduct of Major League Baseball and its representatives has been far from neutral and balanced. But this was the forum the parties chose, even avoiding the opportunity for a hearing before a panel of the American Arbitration Association and proceeding directly to the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC). New arbitrators have been designated to hear the matter for the RSDC. This Court may not order that the arbitration take place in a forum other than the one selected by the parties, notwithstanding the possibility of a more impartial proceeding in another forum (Salvano at 181-182; Cullman Ventures, 252 AD2d at 228 [“Nor may courts direct that the arbitration take place in a forum other than that specified in the agreement, notwithstanding a possibly fairer or more convenient proceeding in a forum not designated in the agreement”]).