Preiss/Breismeister Architects v. Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 437 N.E.2d 1154 (N.Y. 1982). · Go Syfert
Preiss/Breismeister Architects v. Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 437 N.E.2d 1154 (N.Y. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Duprat v. BMW Financial Services Na, LLC (nyappdiv, 2016-09-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duprat v. BMW Financial Services Na, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Cos., 123 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2014]; see generally Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 272 [1985]; Preiss /Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982]; De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stark v. Molod Spitz DeSantis & Stark, P.C.
NY · 2007 · confidence medium
Further, “[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate. . . . [W]here urgent need to preserve the status quo requires some immediate action which cannot await the appointment of arbitrators, waiver will not occur” (Sherrill, 64 NY2d at 273 , citing Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stark v. Molod Spitz DeSantis & Stark, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Moreover, where urgent need to preserve the status quo requires some immediate action which cannot await the appointment of arbitrators, waiver will not occur where plaintiff ‘moves in court for protective relief in order to preserve the status quo while at the same time exercising its right under the contract to demand arbitration’ (Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982])” (Sherrill, 64 NY2d at 273 ; see also Kobak v Schultz, 117 AD2d 714, 715-716 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hart v. Tri-State Consumer, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals has held that where a party seeks to compel arbitration and at the same time seeks protective relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration, there is no waiver of arbitration (see Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982]; Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Glickenhaus & Co. v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
"There is neither waiver nor an election of remedies where * * * plaintiff moves in court for protective relief in order to preserve the status quo while at the same time exercising its right under the contract to demand arbitration” (Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co., supra, at 789).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cotugno v. Bartkowski
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
A party does not waive his right to arbitrate by moving for injunctive relief to preserve the status quo (id.; see also Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787 [1982]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Board of Education of Yonkers City School District v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
The present dispute had not yet arisen and in any event it is apparent that the application for leave to intervene stemmed from the urgent need for immediate action to preserve contractual rights (cf., Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261 ; see also, Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co., 56 NY2d 787 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Preiss/Breismeister Architects, Respondent,
v.
Westin Hotel Company-Plaza Hotel Division, Also Known as the Plaza, Formerly Known as Western International Hotels-Plaza Hotel Division, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
May 20, 1982.
437 N.E.2d 1154
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Garry Hoppe for appellant., Barry B. LePatner for respondent.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

[*789] OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. We agree that the motion to compel arbitration was properly granted. There is neither waiver nor an election of remedies where, as here, plaintiff moves in court for protective relief in order to preserve the status quo while at the same time exercising its right under the contract to demand arbitration.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.