15 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1985–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2024However, "[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate" (Sherrill v Grayco Builders, 64 NY2d 261,273 [1985]). 2024Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc . ( 214 AD3d 1 , 13 [2d Dept 2023]), the Court stated: "We acknowledge that '[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate' ( Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs ., 64 NY2d 261, 273 [1985]; see Cusimano v Schnurr , 26 NY3d at 400). '[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 v Grayco Bldrs ., 64 NY2d at 273 )." Here, notwithstanding that Uber has not engaged in any substantive discovery or motion practice in the persona | 5 | 11 |
De Sapio v. Kohlmeyergreen2 sentences2004Although "[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate" ( Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc. , supra at 273), it has also been observed that "[t]he courtroom may not be used as a convenient vestibule to the arbitration hall so as to allow a party to create his own unique structure combining litigation and arbitration." Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc. , supra at 274, quoting from , De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer , 35 N.Y. 2d 402, 406 (1974). 1990(Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 272 .) Although not every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate, nevertheless, where a defendant’s participation in litigation "manifests an affirmative acceptance of the judicial forum, with whatever advantages it may offer in the particular case, his actions are then inconsistent with a later claim that only the arbitral forum is satisfactory.” (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 .) Here, defendant demanded a complaint, obtained an extension of time to answer the complaint and then served an answer with counterclaims, | 2 | 3 |
Rita Cusimano v. Andrew v. Schnurr Bernard v. Strianesegreen2 sentences2023We acknowledge that "[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate" ( Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs. , 64 NY2d 261, 273 ; see Cusimano v Schnurr , 26 NY3d at 400). "[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 v Grayco Bldrs. , 64 NY2d at 273 ). 2021While not every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate, we are satisfied that the totality of plaintiffs' conduct here establishes such a waiver ( Cusimano v Schunrr , 26 NY3d 391 [2015]; [*2] Black Rhino Invs. | 1 | 2 |
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuitgreen1 sentence2015Plaintiffs emphasize the federal policy preference in favor of arbitration and observe that “any doubts concerning whether there has been a waiver are resolved in favor of arbitration” (Leadertex, Inc. v Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp., 67 F3d 20, 25 [2d Cir 1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Preiss/Breismeister Architects v. Westin Hotel Company-Plaza Hotel Divisiongreen1 sentence2007Further, “[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]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Haupt v. Rosegreen1 sentence2006Matter of Haupt v Rose, 265 NY 108, 110-111 [1934] [entering into stipulation to extend time to answer coupled with moving to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff to separately state and number causes of action insufficient to constitute waiver]; Flynn v Labor Ready, 6 AD3d 492 [2004] [making mo tions to dismiss complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and to deny class action certification insufficient to constitute waiver]; Two Cent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Denihan v. Denihan
green
2 sentences2006Where claims are entirely separate, though arising from a common agreement, no waiver of arbitration may be implied from the fact that resort has been made to the courts on other claims (Denihan v Denihan, 34 NY2d 307, 310 ). 1986Where claims are entirely separate, though arising from a common agreement, no waiver of arbitration may be implied from the fact that resort has been made to the courts on other claims (Denihan v Denihan, 34 NY2d 307, 310 ). | 3 | 1985–2006 |
Hyde v. Jewish Home Lifecare
green
1 sentence2023However, PSF's contention that urgency required it to commence this action by summary judgment in lieu of complaint fails to explain why, after it commenced the action, PSF did not then take any action to demand arbitration in response to the attorney defendants' motion or the cross-motion or in the eight months before the Supreme Court made its sua sponte directive to arbitrate ( see Hyde v Jewish Home Lifecare , 149 AD3d 674 [the defendant waived arbitration where, among other things, the defendant did not move to compel arbitration until approximately four months after the commencement of t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Flynn v. Labor Ready, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Matter of Haupt v Rose, 265 NY 108, 110-111 [1934] [entering into stipulation to extend time to answer coupled with moving to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff to separately state and number causes of action insufficient to constitute waiver]; Flynn v Labor Ready, 6 AD3d 492 [2004] [making mo tions to dismiss complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and to deny class action certification insufficient to constitute waiver]; Two Cent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Matter of Zimmerman v. . Cohen
green
1 sentence2000We begin by noting that although “[n]ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate” (Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273 ), a contractual right to arbitrate may be waived or abandoned if the party invoking arbitration “manifest [s] a preference ‘clearly inconsistent with [his] later claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration’ ” (id., at 272, quoting Matter of Zimmerman v Cohen, 236 NY 15, 19 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
County of Suffolk v. Novo
green
1 sentence1991Here, however, Lupe’s actions "did not clearly evince an intention to waive the right to arbitrate” (Matter of County of Suffolk v Novo, 96 AD2d 902, 903 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.