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.
11 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
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 |
Shah v. Monpat Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2011Therefore, the sole issue is whether the terms of the arbitration clause have been complied with by the party attempting to compel arbitration (see Shah v Monpat Constr., Inc., 65 AD3d 541, 543-544 [2d Dept 2009]). | 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 the Acting Superintendent of Schools of Liverpool Central School District v. United Liverpool Faculty Ass'n
green
2 sentences1981School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509 ). 1979(United Liverpool Faculty Assn.) ( 42 NY2d 509, 513 ) the Court of Appeals set forth two criteria which must be met in order to establish a valid agreement to arbitrate a specific dispute involving a public sector collective bargaining agreement as follows: (1) the arbitration claims with respect to the particular subject matter must be authorized by the terms of the Taylor Law; and (2) such authority must have been in fact exercised and the parties must have agreed by the terms of the arbitration clause to refer their differences in this specific area to arbitration. | 4 | 1979–1981 |
Mineola Union Free School District v. Mineola Teachers Ass'n
green
2 sentences1986A court "may interfere only when the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause in the contract or when the arbitration contravenes a strong public policy (Mineola Union Free School Dist v Mineola Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 568 ).” (Matter of Board of Educ. v Auburn Teachers Assn., 115 AD2d 296, 297 .) Here, the arbitration award does conflict with established public policy which holds that a school district may not bargain away any of its decision-making responsibilities which are concerned with the maintenance of classroom standards (Honeoye Falls-Lim 1985It may interfere only when the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause in the contract or when the arbitration contravenes a strong public policy (Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 568 ). | 2 | 1985–1986 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Siegel & Lewis
green
2 sentences1981Generally, arbitration is to proceed according to the provisions in the contract (see Matter of Siegel [Lewis], 40 NY2d 687 ; Matter of Astoria Med. 1981Generally, arbitration is to proceed according to the provisions in the contract (see Matter of Siegel [Lewis] , 40 N.Y.2d 687 ; Matter of Astoria Med. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Regan v. Smith
green
1 sentence1986A court "may interfere only when the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause in the contract or when the arbitration contravenes a strong public policy (Mineola Union Free School Dist v Mineola Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 568 ).” (Matter of Board of Educ. v Auburn Teachers Assn., 115 AD2d 296, 297 .) Here, the arbitration award does conflict with established public policy which holds that a school district may not bargain away any of its decision-making responsibilities which are concerned with the maintenance of classroom standards (Honeoye Falls-Lim | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib Houlberg
green
1 sentence1947The law of the place of contract defines the content of the agreement upon which the remedy shall operate.” It is pointed out by the Court of Appeals in the Marchant case (supra, p. 293) that “ At common law, general contracts of arbitration, though not specifically enforcible, were not held to be illegal ” and that “ The statute of New York does not bring the contract into being, but adds a new implement, the remedy of specific performance, for its more effectual enforcement.” Then follows the following indicative and persuasive language: “ This remedy may lawfully be extended to contracts * | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.