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.
12 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Arbitration Between Rosenbaum & American Surety Co.green2 sentences2012Rather, the subject arbitration clause was “particular, not general,” and “made arbitrable two fact issues only,” that is, whether Rothfeld was entitled to recover from the uninsured/underinsured motorist, and the amount of damages recoverable under the SUM endorsement (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sun Co. of N.Y.], 11 NY2d 310, 314 [1962]; see Matter of Travelers Indem. 2012Rather, the subject arbitration clause was “particular, not general,” and “made arbitrable two fact issues only,” that is, whether Rothfeld was entitled to recover from the uninsured/underinsured motorist, and the amount of damages recoverable under the SUM endorsement (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sun Co. of N.Y.], 11 NY2d 310, 314 [1962]; see Matter of Travelers Indem. | 2 | 3 |
In re Arbitration between Travelers Indemnity Co. & Levygreen2 sentences2012Co. [Levy], 195 AD2d 35, 39-40 [1993]; cf. Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. 2012Co. [Levy], 195 AD2d 35, 39-40 [1993]; cf. Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. | 2 | 2 |
Anderson Street Realty Corp. v. New Rochelle Revitalization, LLCgreen1 sentence2019Realty Corp. v New Rochelle Revitalization, LLC , 78 AD3d 972, 975 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Weiss v Nath , 97 AD3d 661, 663 ). | 1 | 1 |
Weiss v. Nathgreen1 sentence2019Realty Corp. v New Rochelle Revitalization, LLC , 78 AD3d 972, 975 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Weiss v Nath , 97 AD3d 661, 663 ). | 1 | 1 |
Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.green1 sentence2013One such case is last year’s Appellate Division, First Department case of Ayzenberg v Bronx House Emanuel Campus, Inc. ( 93 AD3d 607, 607-608 [1st Dept 2012]), where the Appellate Division found, without explanation, “that the sale/purchase of the services defendant provided constitutes a transaction ‘involving commerce’ within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act (see Citizens Bank v Alafabco, Inc., 539 US 52, 56 [2003]) . . . [and] that to the extent General Business Law § 399-c may prohibit the subject arbitration clause, it is preempted by federal law.” Unlike most of the cases invol | 1 | 1 |
Ayzenberg v. Bronx House Emanuel Campus, Inc.green1 sentence2013One such case is last year’s Appellate Division, First Department case of Ayzenberg v Bronx House Emanuel Campus, Inc. ( 93 AD3d 607, 607-608 [1st Dept 2012]), where the Appellate Division found, without explanation, “that the sale/purchase of the services defendant provided constitutes a transaction ‘involving commerce’ within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act (see Citizens Bank v Alafabco, Inc., 539 US 52, 56 [2003]) . . . [and] that to the extent General Business Law § 399-c may prohibit the subject arbitration clause, it is preempted by federal law.” Unlike most of the cases invol | 1 | 1 |
Charlene Jenkins, and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. First American Cash Advance of Georgia, Llc, First National Bank in Brookingsgreen1 sentence2006Cash Advance of Ga., LLC, 400 F3d 868, 880-882 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
Blatt v. Sochetgreen1 sentence1996Further, we note that the subject arbitration clause is a broad, rather than narrow, one, and as such, it "should be given the full effect of its wording in order to implement the intention of the parties” (Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 199 ; see, Blatt v Socket, 199 AD2d 451, 453 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Arbitration Between Weinrott & Carp
green
2 sentences2006Given the breadth of the subject arbitration clause, however, we find that the legality of the underlying loan agreements is an issue for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide (see Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 [1973]; cf. Jenkins v First Am. 1996Further, we note that the subject arbitration clause is a broad, rather than narrow, one, and as such, it "should be given the full effect of its wording in order to implement the intention of the parties” (Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 199 ; see, Blatt v Socket, 199 AD2d 451, 453 ). | 3 | 1995–2006 |
Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's
green
1 sentence2019Moreover, we need not decide whether the intended scope of the subject arbitration clause is general or limited, as it is undisputed that the clause applies, at minimum, to any dispute regarding the plaintiff's termination for cause, and "[t]he AAA rules authorize the arbitration tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement" ( Life Receivables Trust v Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's , 66 AD3d 495 , 495-496, affd 14 NY3d 850, 851 ). "[W]here arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably inter | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Schreiber v. K-Sea Transportation Corp.
green
1 sentence2009Brady has met her burden of establishing that the arbitration fees and costs are so high as to discourage her from vindicating her state and federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum, rendering the subject arbitration clause unenforceable (Green Tree Financial Corp.Ala., 531 US at 90 ; Schreiber, 9 NY3d at 341 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph
green
1 sentence2009Brady has met her burden of establishing that the arbitration fees and costs are so high as to discourage her from vindicating her state and federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum, rendering the subject arbitration clause unenforceable (Green Tree Financial Corp.Ala., 531 US at 90 ; Schreiber, 9 NY3d at 341 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Sperantsas
neutral
1 sentence1998Corp.], 211 AD2d 522 ); rather, they show that Abraham Fuchsberg signed the agreement containing the subject arbitration clause solely on behalf of the firm of Fuchs-berg & Fuchsberg. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
green
1 sentence1995Co., 388 US 395 ; Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re the Arbitration between Bache & Co. & HS Equities, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1990We have noted that broad arbitration clauses should be given full effect (Matter of Praetorian Realty Corp. [Presidential Towers Residence], 49 AD2d 816 , affd 40 NY2d 897 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990We have noted that broad arbitration clauses should be given full effect (Matter of Praetorian Realty Corp. [Presidential Towers Residence], 49 AD2d 816 , affd 40 NY2d 897 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer
green
1 sentence1978Thus, Atlanta expressed its choice to resolve all outstanding controversies in the courts (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
The Belize
green
1 sentence1978(American Locomotive Co. v Gyro Process Co., 185 F2d 316; The Belize, 25 F Supp 663 , app dsmd 101 F2d 1005.) In this proceeding, Atlanta counterclaimed on the promissory note, an item clearly not covered by the subject arbitration clause. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.