17 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1940–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Belzberg v. Verus Investments Holdings Inc.green2 sentences2025The benefits to Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC — namely, respondent's representation of them — can be traced directly to the agreement containing the arbitration clause ( id. at 633 ) and were specifically contemplated by the parties to the engagement letter ( see Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirshner , 182 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 915 [2020]). 2025The benefits to Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC — namely, respondent's representation of them — can be traced directly to the agreement containing the arbitration clause ( id. at 633) and were specifically contemplated by the parties to the engagement letter ( see Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirshner , 182 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 915 [2020]). | 2 | 4 |
People ex rel. Pressley v. Warden of Rikers Island Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC are estopped from asserting that they are not bound by the letter's arbitration clause ( see Matter of SSL Intl., PLC v Zook , 44 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2007]; HRH Constr. 2025Accordingly, Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC are estopped from asserting that they are not bound by the letter's arbitration clause ( see Matter of SSL Intl., PLC v Zook , 44 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2007]; HRH Constr. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of KPMG LLP v. Kirschnergreen2 sentences2025The benefits to Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC — namely, respondent's representation of them — can be traced directly to the agreement containing the arbitration clause ( id. at 633 ) and were specifically contemplated by the parties to the engagement letter ( see Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirshner , 182 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 915 [2020]). 2025The benefits to Wiener and Pinnacle Group NY, LLC — namely, respondent's representation of them — can be traced directly to the agreement containing the arbitration clause ( id. at 633) and were specifically contemplated by the parties to the engagement letter ( see Matter of KPMG LLP v Kirshner , 182 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 915 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchristgreen1 sentence2024(See Denney v Jenkens & Gilchrist, 412 F Supp 2d 293, 299 [SD NY 2005] [denying a motion to compel arbitration because the plaintiff's claims were not "intimately founded in or intertwined" with the agreement containing the arbitration clause and the plaintiff could "allege the same causes of action" were the agreements void].) 651347/2022 GNHC 1703-518, LLC vs. | 1 | 1 |
Degraw Construction Group, Inc. v. McGowan Builders, Inc.green1 sentence2021Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 152 AD3d 567, 569-570 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1055-1056 [1996]; Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d 127, 143-144 [2d Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Revis v. Schwartzgreen1 sentence2021Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 152 AD3d 567, 569-570 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1055-1056 [1996]; Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d 127, 143-144 [2d Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Hirschfeld Productions, Inc. v. Mirvishgreen1 sentence2021Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 152 AD3d 567, 569-570 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1055-1056 [1996]; Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d 127, 143-144 [2d Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
GOD'S CHURCH v. Miele Assoc.green1 sentence2019Respondent argues that Mancini and Alliance are estopped from compelling litigation regarding the veneer stone panels because Alliance previously served a demand for arbitration on Gilbane and Mancini, with the demand specifically stating that one of the bases for seeking arbitration was the dispute resolution section of the General Conditions related to the construction project ( see God's Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP , 6 NY3d 371, 374 [2006] [binding the plaintiff to an unsigned contract that contained an arbitration provision and directing the plaintiff t | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Cammarata v. InfoExchange, Inc.green1 sentence2019The court correctly denied the branch of defendants' motion seeking to compel arbitration because plaintiff was not a party to the agreement containing the arbitration clause and the claims at issue were, by separate agreement, required to be litigated in New York ( see Matter of Cammarata v InfoExchange, Inc. , 122 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2014]; Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v American Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Sr. Kate Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp.green2 sentences2017In the arbitration context, the Court of Appeals has adopted "the direct benefits theory of estoppel", pursuant to which a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement where the non-signatory [*9] " 'knowingly exploits' the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement ." Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc. , 21 NY3d 626 , 631 (2013) (emphasis added), citing, e.g., Reid v Doe Run Resources Corp. , 701 F3d 840, 846 (8th Cir 2012) ("Direct benefits estoppel applies when a nonsignatory knowingly exploits the agree 2017In the arbitration context, the Court of Appeals has adopted "the direct benefits theory of estoppel", pursuant to which a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement where the non-signatory [*9] " 'knowingly exploits' the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement ." Belzberg v Verus Investments Holdings Inc. , 21 NY3d 626 , 631 (2013) (emphasis added), citing, e.g., Reid v Doe Run Resources Corp. , 701 F3d 840, 846 (8th Cir 2012) ("Direct benefits estoppel applies when a nonsignatory knowingly exploits the agree | 1 | 1 |
New York State Office of Children v. Lantermangreen1 sentence2015Rather, the complaint alleges breach of a separate settlement agreement which does not contain an arbitration provision (see Matter of New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. v Lanterman, 14 NY3d 275, 283 [2010] [declining to compel arbitration where there was no alleged breach of the agreement containing the arbitration clause]). | 1 | 1 |
Bowmer v. Bowmergreen1 sentence1995"The agreement to arbitrate must be express, direct, and unequivocal as to the issues or disputes to be submitted to arbitration” (Gangel v De-Groot, 41 NY2d 840, 841 ; see also, Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288, 293-294 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhinehart Sand & Gravel Co. v. Andrew
green
2 sentences1977Similarly, whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause had been superseded by a later agreement between the parties was for the arbitrator (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 36 NY2d 945, 947 ). 1977Similarly, whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause had been superseded by a later agreement between the parties was for the arbitrator (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.] 36 NY2d 945, 947 ). | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Allegro Resorts Corp. v. Trans-Americainvest (St. Kitts) Ltd.
neutral
2 sentences2020In Allegro , the First Department affirmed an order staying arbitration because the party against whom arbitration was sought had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause ( id. at 270 ). 2020Rather, the subject party had signed only a different, separate agreement that did not contain an arbitration provision ( id. ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v. American Industrial Partners
green
1 sentence2019Partners , 96 AD3d 646 , 649-650 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Renis Fabrics Corp. v. Millworth Converting Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Unlike the clearly interrelated agreements here, the agreement containing the arbitration clause in Renis Fabrics Corp. v Millworth Converting Corp. ( 25 Misc 2d 280 [I960]), relied upon by the motion court, did not refer to the prior loan agreement that gave rise to the dispute in that case. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Acosta v. Yale Club
neutral
1 sentence2008Acosta v Yale Club of N.Y City, 261 AD2d 261 [1999]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gangel v. DeGroot
green
1 sentence1995"The agreement to arbitrate must be express, direct, and unequivocal as to the issues or disputes to be submitted to arbitration” (Gangel v De-Groot, 41 NY2d 840, 841 ; see also, Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288, 293-294 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Levine v. Levine
green
1 sentence1983The fact that the same attorney acted for both parties in connection with the agreement containing the arbitration clause does not per se invalidate the agreement (Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42 ) even though that attorney may have been closer to one side than the other. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)
green
1 sentence1977In Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.) ( 289 NY 76 79-80 ) it was held that whether the contract with the arbitration clause had been canceled should be determined by the arbitrator.” (Matter of Nassau Ins. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Weinrott & Carp
green
2 sentences1976Special Term held that the arbitration clause is not the kind of "broad" arbitration provision involved in Matter of Weinrott (Carp) ( 32 N.Y.2d 190 ) and that *123 therefore the issues relating to the inception of the agreement and its validity are to be determined by the court. 1976Special Term held that the arbitration clause is not the kind of "broad” arbitration provision involved in Matter of Weinrott (Carp) ( 32 NY2d 190 ) and that therefore the issues relating to the inception of the agreement and its validity are to be determined by the court. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Gruen v. Carter
neutral
1 sentence1940The point that the decision of the Appellate Division (Gruen v. Carter, 258 App. Div. 36 ), on a prior appeal in an action between the parties to this proceeding, constitutes a holding that respondent could not assail the validity of the agreement containing the arbitration clause except through the institution of a plenary action is not well taken. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.