marks omitted) (emphasis in original). B. Arbitrability Objections to arbitrability — i.e., an arbitrator’s authority to hear a particular dispute-must be timely made. See, e.g., ComTech Dev. Co. v. Univ. of Conn. Educ. Props., Inc., 102 F.3d 677, 685 (2d Cir.1996) (“An objection to the arbitrability of a claim must be made on a timely basis, or it is waived.”). A party’s participation in the arbitration may waive rights or otherwise prevent it from contesting the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to hear a particular dispute. See, e.g., Application of Herman Miller, Inc., No. 97-CV-7878, 1998 WL 193213, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 1998) aff'd sub nom. Herman Miller, Inc. v. Worth Capital, Inc. y, 173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir.1999); Gvozdenovic v. United Airlines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Teamsters Local Union No. 761 v. J.H. Merritt
holding that an arbitration agreement was invalid because inter alia the employer could modify the rules at any time without notice holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings holding that appellants were bound by arbitrators ruling because they voluntarily and without objection participated in arbitration by inter alia arguing their case before an arbitrator holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights