to the arbitrator for letters rogatory or took any steps to secure compulsory process. No other suggestion of procedural unfairness is alleged, and our review of the record indicates that the arbitrator gave to the parties every courtesy and generous latitude that could be accorded. We conclude that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion in his handling of this evidentiary ruling. He had before him ample evidence upon which to decide the dispute. He weighed the conflicting evidence (without considering Hynds’ evidence) and decided that PBI had breached the Agreement. Although there have been cases in which an arbitrator denied a party the opportunity to a meaningful hearing, this cannot be considered one of them. See Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 21 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Iran Aircraft Indus. v. Avco Corp., 980 F.2d
holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that actions of arbitrators in gathering evidence outside the scheduled hearings and without notice to the parties constituted misconduct sufficient to vacate the award holding that the three month limitation of faa  12 on a motion to vacate an award did not apply to a state court motion to vacate because the procedural aspects of the faa are confined to federal cases holding that under the faa  10a arbitration panels refusal to continue hearings to allow witness to testify the only witness with evidence of fraud not found from other sources was fundamental unfairness and misconduct sufficient to vacate the award