Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
36 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1956–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckiegreen2 sentences2024"In enacting the FAA, Congress established a Federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, which is to be advanced by rigorous judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements and by resolution of any ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself * * * in favor of arbitration" ( id. at 200-201 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 1997Second, petitioner’s reliance on the Garrity rule was unjustified in light of the judicial recognition of the FAA’s preemptive effect in Mastrobuono (supra), and in our own decisions (see, Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., supra; see also, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris, Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193 ). | 2 | 2 |
Weissman v. Revel Transit, Inc.green2 sentences2024The First Department has enforced similar delegation clauses in Uber's Terms of Use ( see Mejia v Linares , 219 AD3d 1251 [1st Dept 2023] [terms of agreement make clear that there existed enforceable arbitration agreement to which plaintiff assented, and which delegates to arbitrator resolution of any claim regarding its enforceability]; Wu v Uber Tech., Inc. 219 AD3d 1208 [plain language of delegation provision in arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably evinced parties' intent to delegate to arbitrator responsibility for resolving essentially any and all threshold issues]; Weissman v R 2024The First Department has enforced similar delegation clauses in Uber's Terms of Use ( see Mejia v Linares , 219 AD3d 1251 [1st Dept 2023] [terms of agreement make clear that there existed enforceable arbitration agreement to which plaintiff assented, and which delegates to arbitrator resolution of any claim regarding its enforceability]; Wu v Uber Tech., Inc. 219 AD3d 1208 [plain language of delegation provision in arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably evinced parties' intent to delegate to arbitrator responsibility for resolving essentially any and all threshold issues]; Weissman v R | 2 | 2 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2012“Having determined that the dispute is within the scope of the arbitration clause, we do not consider whether the claim ... is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute” (Icdas Celik, 81 AD3d at 483 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2012“Having determined that the dispute is within the scope of the arbitration clause, we do not consider whether the claim ... is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute” (Icdas Celik, 81 AD3d at 483 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green2 sentences1997In finding arbitrability and enforcing the agreements, we were guided by the principle that in agreements covered by the FA A, "due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration” (Volt Information Sciences v Stanford Univ., supra, at 476; see also, Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, supra). 1995In enacting the FAA, Congress established a Federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, which is to be advanced by rigorous judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements (Shearson/American Express v McMahon, 482 US 220 ) and by resolution of any "ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself * * * in favor of arbitration” (Volt Information Sciences v Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 US 468, 476 , supra; Moses H. | 1 | 2 |
Stuart L. Bell v. Cendant Corporation, American Arbitration Associationgreen1 sentence2024"Because an agreement to arbitrate is a creature of contract, however, the ultimate question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is determined by state law" ( Bell v Cendant Corp. , 293 F3d 563, 566 [2d Cir 2002]; Irving R. | 1 | 1 |
Liberty Management & Construction Ltd. v. Fifth Avenue & Sixty-Sixth Street Corp.green1 sentence2019Corp. , 208 AD2d 73, 80 [1st Dept 1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Norris v. Coopergreen1 sentence2019The issue is within the scope of the arbitration clause, and was before the arbitrator in the statement of claim and throughout the hearing, and the arbitrator had broad discretion to fashion the remedy ( Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats] , 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
Louis Dreyfus Negoce S.A. v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc.green1 sentence2018Section 4.27 of the SPA sets forth the parties' rights and obligations with respect to the Augusta facility preceding the facility's successful completion of a "Performance Test." Subsection (f) requires defendants to notify plaintiff of "any event, change, effect, circumstance or development of which it has Knowledge ... that ... raises reasonable concerns whether the Augusta Facility will be able to achieve successful completion of the Performance Test." Subsection (i) provides for arbitration of "any disputes between [Rockwood] and [plaintiff] regarding the terms and conditions of, and the | 1 | 1 |
Gershen v. Hessgreen1 sentence2011Having determined that the dispute is within the scope of the arbitration clause, we do “not consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute” (Matter of Gershen v Hess, 163 AD2d 17, 18 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
Saferstein v. Wendygreen1 sentence2009In this context, a likelihood of success is demonstrated where it is determined that “the arbitration clause is broad enough to encompass the claim asserted in the demand for arbitration.” (Matter of Saferstein v Wendy, 137 Misc 2d 1032, 1037 [Sup Ct, NY County 1987, Crane, J.].) Here, the breach of contract counterclaims seeking specific performance and money damages are clearly within the scope of the arbitration clause, which provides that any and all disputes arising under the Agreement are subject to arbitration. | 1 | 1 |
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.green2 sentences1997In finding arbitrability and enforcing the agreements, we were guided by the principle that in agreements covered by the FA A, "due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration” (Volt Information Sciences v Stanford Univ., supra, at 476; see also, Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, supra). 1997Second, petitioner’s reliance on the Garrity rule was unjustified in light of the judicial recognition of the FAA’s preemptive effect in Mastrobuono (supra), and in our own decisions (see, Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., supra; see also, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris, Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193 ). | 1 | 1 |
| MATTER OF WYANDANCH UNION FREE SCH. DIST. v. Wyandanch Teachers Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mejia v. Linares
green
2 sentences2024The First Department has enforced similar delegation clauses in Uber's Terms of Use ( see Mejia v Linares , 219 AD3d 1251 [1st Dept 2023] [terms of agreement make clear that there existed enforceable arbitration agreement to which plaintiff assented, and which delegates to arbitrator resolution of any claim regarding its enforceability]; Wu v Uber Tech., Inc. 219 AD3d 1208 [plain language of delegation provision in arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably evinced parties' intent to delegate to arbitrator responsibility for resolving essentially any and all threshold issues]; Weissman v R 2024The First Department has enforced similar delegation clauses in Uber's Terms of Use ( see Mejia v Linares , 219 AD3d 1251 [1st Dept 2023] [terms of agreement make clear that there existed enforceable arbitration agreement to which plaintiff assented, and which delegates to arbitrator resolution of any claim regarding its enforceability]; Wu v Uber Tech., Inc. 219 AD3d 1208 [plain language of delegation provision in arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably evinced parties' intent to delegate to arbitrator responsibility for resolving essentially any and all threshold issues]; Weissman v R | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Sisters of Saint John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v. Phillips R. Geraghty Constructor, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997 ; General Mills v Steuben Foods, 244 AD2d 868 ; Olympia & York OLP Co. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 214 AD2d 509, 511 ). 1997John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998 ). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Board of Education of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District v. Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers
green
2 sentences1986Once it has been determined that the claim sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause in question, and that the arbitration of such a dispute is not against the public policy of this State, any further judicial inquiry is foreclosed and all remaining issues, including the res judicata effect of a prior award, are within the exclusive province of the arbitrator to resolve (Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812 ; Matter of Board of Educ. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 AD2d 411, 412 , affd 64 NY2d 822 ). 1984After addressing these threshold questions, any further judicial inquiry is foreclosed in seeking a stay of arbitration, and all remaining issues, including the res judicata effect of the prior award, are within the exclusive province of the arbitrator to resolve (Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812 ; see CPLR 7503, subd [b]). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
In re the Arbitration between Paver & Wildfoerster & Catholic High School Ass'n
green
2 sentences1980While, as a general rule, once a controversy is properly before the arbitrator he has wide discretion in his choice of remedies (Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.] 38 NY2d 669, 677 ), the power to formulate flexible solutions cannot be used as a bootstrap for an unpredictable expansion of the parameters of arbitral authority (cf. Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 359 ). 1976Moreover, reliance upon prior decisions of this court holding that arbitrators may "fashion the remedy appropriate to the wrong” (e.g., Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669, 677 ) begs the question of whether the claim to be arbitrated is within the scope of the arbitration clause. | 2 | 1976–1980 |
In re the Arbitration between the Acting Superintendent of Schools of Liverpool Central School District v. United Liverpool Faculty Ass'n
green
2 sentences1979School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509 ; Matter of Long Is. 1978(United Liverpool Faculty Assn.) ( 42 NY2d 509, 510-511 ) ,the Court of Appeals set forth the standard which should be followed in deciding whether in an arbitration proceeding under the Taylor Law, a particular matter is within the scope of the arbitration clause: "We hold that in arbitrations which proceed under the authority of the Taylor Law, the scope of the particular arbitration clause, and thus whether the question sought to be submitted to arbitration is within or without the ambit of that clause, is to be determined by the courts. | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Kudler v. Truffelman
green
1 sentence2019The remedy was not an improper punitive award ( see Kudler v Truffelman , 93 AD3d 549 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Harris v. Galjour
green
1 sentence2018Section 4.27 of the SPA sets forth the parties' rights and obligations with respect to the Augusta facility preceding the facility's successful completion of a "Performance Test." Subsection (f) requires defendants to notify plaintiff of "any event, change, effect, circumstance or development of which it has Knowledge ... that ... raises reasonable concerns whether the Augusta Facility will be able to achieve successful completion of the Performance Test." Subsection (i) provides for arbitration of "any disputes between [Rockwood] and [plaintiff] regarding the terms and conditions of, and the | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPartners, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Rule 8 (a) of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” * This has been construed as a delegation of the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator (see, Sleeper Farms v Agway, Inc., 211 F Supp 2d 197 [D Me 2002]; Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v MedPartners, Inc., 203 FRD 677 [SD Fla 2001], affd 312 F3d 1349 [11th Cir 2002]; Professional Sports Tickets & Tours v Bridgeview Bank | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Rule 8 (a) of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” * This has been construed as a delegation of the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator (see, Sleeper Farms v Agway, Inc., 211 F Supp 2d 197 [D Me 2002]; Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v MedPartners, Inc., 203 FRD 677 [SD Fla 2001], affd 312 F3d 1349 [11th Cir 2002]; Professional Sports Tickets & Tours v Bridgeview Bank | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Olympia & York OLP Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997 ; General Mills v Steuben Foods, 244 AD2d 868 ; Olympia & York OLP Co. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 214 AD2d 509, 511 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
General Mills, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997 ; General Mills v Steuben Foods, 244 AD2d 868 ; Olympia & York OLP Co. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 214 AD2d 509, 511 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Stewart v. ScheiNert
neutral
1 sentence1997The scope of the arbitration clause at issue is narrow and equivocal, and as such it must be read conservatively (see, Shuffman v Rudd Plastic Fabrics Corp., 64 AD2d 699 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon
green
2 sentences1995In enacting the FAA, Congress established a *201 Federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, which is to be advanced by rigorous judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements ( Shearson/American Express v McMahon , 482 US 220 ) and by resolution of any "ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself * * * in favor of arbitration" ( Volt Information Sciences v Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. , 489 US 468, 476 , supra; Moses H. 1995In enacting the FAA, Congress established a Federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, which is to be advanced by rigorous judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements (Shearson/American Express v McMahon, 482 US 220 ) and by resolution of any "ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself * * * in favor of arbitration” (Volt Information Sciences v Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 US 468, 476 , supra; Moses H. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schlaifer v. Sedlow
green
1 sentence1994It is well settled that "[o]nce the parties to a broad arbitration clause have made a valid choice of forum * * * all questions with respect to the validity and effect of subsequent documents purporting to work a modification or termination of the substantive provisions of their original agreement are to be resolved by the arbitrator” (Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow, 51 NY2d 181, 185 ; Matter of Fener Realty Co. [NICO Constr. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bowmer v. Bowmer
green
1 sentence1991Moreover, the claims raised in the action are beyond the scope of the arbitration clause, and consequently not arbitrable (see, Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288, 293-294 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Twelvetrees
neutral
1 sentence1990Co., 95 AD2d 721, 723 , affd 62 NY2d 873 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re the Arbitration Between John W. Cowper Co. & Hires-Turner Glass Co.
green
1 sentence1990Although the Gershens contend that it is premature to require the arbitration of the indemnification or contribution claims, once the court determines that a dispute within the scope of the arbitration clause exists, "the court shall not consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute” (CPLR 7501; and see, Matter of Cowper Co. [Hires-Turner Glass Co.], 51 NY2d 937 ; Bellevue S. Assocs. v Heckler Elec. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bellevue South Associates v. Heckler Electric Co.
neutral
1 sentence1990Co., 95 AD2d 721, 723 , affd 62 NY2d 873 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lunden v. Petito
green
1 sentence1988The fact that the dispute might otherwise serve as a predicate for judicial dissolution does not narrow the scope of the arbitration clause (see, Matter of Levy, 79 AD2d 684 ; Matter of Moskowitz v Surrey Sleep Prods., 30 AD2d 820 ) and we are bound to give it effect. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| American Security Insurance v. Williams green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Brown v. V&R Advertising, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Brown v. v & R Advertising, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| In re the Arbitration between Board of Education, Florida Union Free School District & Florida Teachers Ass'n green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Matter of Bd. of Educ., Florida Union Free Sch. Dist. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| INTERNATIONAL U. OF E., R. & M. WKRS. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Citizens Care Day Care Center, Inc. v. Community & Social Agency Employees Union neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Central Gulf Steamship Corp. v. Grace Line, Inc. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| In re the Arbitration between Rederi & Dow Chemical Co. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Express Limousine Service, Inc. v. Hennessy green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Matter of Bd. of Educ. of the Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Roosevelt Teachers Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Board of Education v. Barni green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Wyandanch Union Free School District v. Wyandanch Teachers Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| G. E. Howard & Co. v. Daley green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| In re the Arbitration between Riverdale Fabrics Corp. & Tillinghast-Stiles Co. green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| In re the Arbitration between Baker & Board of Education neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.) green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc. green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| In Re the Arbitration Between Bohlinger & National Cash Register Co. green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.