validity of the arbitration clause in New York

2025Thus, even when it is alleged . . . that the contract itself is invalid in its entirety, the court's role is still confined to determining the validity of the arbitration clause alone" ( Matter of Prinze [Jonas] , 38 NY2d 570, 577 [2d Dept 1976]).

2020"Thus even when it is alleged . . . that the contract itself is invalid in its entirety, the court's role is still confined to determining the validity of the arbitration clause alone" ( id. at 577 ).

2024Realty Corp. v New Rochelle Revitalization, LLC, 78 AD3d 972, 974 [2d Dept 2010] [internal citations omitted]).

2024Realty Corp. v New Rochelle Revitalization, LLC , 78 AD3d 972 [2d Dept 2010]; Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v Winchester Global Trust Co. Ltd ., 21 AD3d 887 [2d Dept 2005]).

2016As the United States Supreme Court has stated, *675 “[Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements . . . can be divided into two types,” namely, “challenges specifically [to] the validity of the agreement to arbitrate” and “challenges [to] the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement {e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions renders the whole contract invalid” (Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v Cardegna, 546 US 440, 444 [2006]). “[A]ttacks on the validity of the contract

2013The Court set forth that, once the trial court determined that a contract binding the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, “it is a mainstay of the Act’s substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself, are to be resolved by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state court.” (568 US at —, 133 S Ct at 503 [internal quotation marks omitted].) A careful review of the history of the parties’ commercial relationship, as well as the documents commencing from the July 2, 2003 supplier

2003Under New York law, however, the court not only “must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself,” which is consistent with federal law, but also “where the alleged illegality permeates the [agreement] as a whole” (Teleserve Sys., 230 AD2d at 592 ; see Weinrott, 32 NY2d at 197 ; see also Silverman, 61 NY2d at 307-308 ; Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 577 [1976]; House keeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 [1972], appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 [1973]; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., 129 Misc 2d 857, 859 [1985]).

1997Under CPLR article 75, in contrast, the court must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, or where the alleged illegality permeates the contract as a whole (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307-308 ; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], supra, at 577; Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 ; Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 , appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 ; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., supra, at 859).

2003Under New York law, however, the court not only “must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself,” which is consistent with federal law, but also “where the alleged illegality permeates the [agreement] as a whole” (Teleserve Sys., 230 AD2d at 592 ; see Weinrott, 32 NY2d at 197 ; see also Silverman, 61 NY2d at 307-308 ; Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 577 [1976]; House keeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 [1972], appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 [1973]; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., 129 Misc 2d 857, 859 [1985]).

1997Under CPLR article 75, in contrast, the court must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, or where the alleged illegality permeates the contract as a whole (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307-308 ; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], supra, at 577; Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 ; Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 , appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 ; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., supra, at 859).

2024"The issue of fraud in the inducement affects the validity of the arbitration clause only when the fraud relates to the arbitration provision itself, or was 'part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire contract'" ( see id quoting Weinrott v Carp , 32 NY2d 190 [1973]; citing Anderson St.

2010The issue of fraud in the inducement affects the validity of the arbitration clause only when the fraud relates to the arbitration provision itself, or was “part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire contract” (Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d at 197 ; see Jamaica Hosp.

2004While it is now settled that allegations of coercion, duress, or fraud in the inducement of the substantive provisions of a contract containing an arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitrator ( see , Matter of Weinrott [Carp] , 32 NY2d [*3]190, ), where the challenge is to "the validity of the arbitration clause itself," the issue remains one for the court ( see , Teleserve Sys., Inc. [MCI Telecommunications Corp.] , 230 AD2d 585, 592 ).

2003Under New York law, however, the court not only “must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself,” which is consistent with federal law, but also “where the alleged illegality permeates the [agreement] as a whole” (Teleserve Sys., 230 AD2d at 592 ; see Weinrott, 32 NY2d at 197 ; see also Silverman, 61 NY2d at 307-308 ; Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 577 [1976]; House keeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 [1972], appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 [1973]; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., 129 Misc 2d 857, 859 [1985]).

2016Co., 388 US 395, 403-404 [1967]).

1997Again, we need not concern ourselves with the apparent conflict because, under either Federal or New York law, to the extent that petitioner challenges the arbitration clauses themselves or their inclusion in the agreements, those challenges are for the court to determine (see, Prima Paint v Flood & Conklin, supra, at 403-404 ; Moseley v Electronic Facilities, supra, at 171; Lawrence Co. v Devonshire Fabrics, supra, at 410-411; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], supra, at 307-308; Housekeeper v Lourie, supra, at 283-285; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., supra, at 859).

2003Under New York law, however, the court not only “must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself,” which is consistent with federal law, but also “where the alleged illegality permeates the [agreement] as a whole” (Teleserve Sys., 230 AD2d at 592 ; see Weinrott, 32 NY2d at 197 ; see also Silverman, 61 NY2d at 307-308 ; Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 577 [1976]; House keeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 [1972], appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 [1973]; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., 129 Misc 2d 857, 859 [1985]).

1997Under CPLR article 75, in contrast, the court must decide the challenge where it is to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, or where the alleged illegality permeates the contract as a whole (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307-308 ; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], supra, at 577; Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 ; Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 283-285 , appeal dismissed 32 NY2d 832 ; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., supra, at 859).

2016As the United States Supreme Court has stated, *675 “[Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements . . . can be divided into two types,” namely, “challenges specifically [to] the validity of the agreement to arbitrate” and “challenges [to] the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement {e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions renders the whole contract invalid” (Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v Cardegna, 546 US 440, 444 [2006]). “[A]ttacks on the validity of the contract

2016As the United States Supreme Court has stated, *675 “[Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements . . . can be divided into two types,” namely, “challenges specifically [to] the validity of the agreement to arbitrate” and “challenges [to] the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement {e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions renders the whole contract invalid” (Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v Cardegna, 546 US 440, 444 [2006]). “[A]ttacks on the validity of the contract

2010Regardless of the validity of the arbitration clause in the parties’ registered representative agreement, arbitration of the parties’ dispute about the negotiable promissory note given by the appellant to the respondent was proper pursuant to the broad arbitration clause in the form U-4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) submitted by the appellant to the National Association of Securities Dealers (see Hamilton v Cantor Fitzgerald Sec., 265 AD2d 526, 527 [1999]).

2004Similarly, where the controversy centers on the validity of a waiver of an arbitration clause, per se, the dispute goes right to the heart of whether there still exists a valid agreement to arbitrate, and would arguably come within the scope of the court's review in an article 75 proceeding ( CPLR 7503 [b]; cf. , Metalink Marine Corp. v Ned Chartering & Trading, Inc. , 207 AD2d 688, 690 [" Unless the documents which purport to terminate the parties' original agreement relate to the arbitration clause, the question of whether or not termination occurred is properly to the decided by the arbitra

1997Again, we need not concern ourselves with the apparent conflict because, under either Federal or New York law, to the extent that petitioner challenges the arbitration clauses themselves or their inclusion in the agreements, those challenges are for the court to determine (see, Prima Paint v Flood & Conklin, supra, at 403-404 ; Moseley v Electronic Facilities, supra, at 171; Lawrence Co. v Devonshire Fabrics, supra, at 410-411; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], supra, at 307-308; Housekeeper v Lourie, supra, at 283-285; Dolomite, S.p.A. v Beconta, Inc., supra, at 859).