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.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'ngreen2 sentences2017Under the first prong of the arbitrability test, “the subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis” (Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280 [2000]). 2011The subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis under the first prong, and the court must determine “whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]; see Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280 [2000]; Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]). | 4 | 4 |
In Re the Arbitration Between City of Johnstown & Johnstown Police Benevolent Ass'ngreen2 sentences2011The subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis under the first prong, and the court must determine “whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]; see Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280 [2000]; Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]). 2009Under the first prong, our inquiry is whether “there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]) and “the subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis” (Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Arbitration Between Village of Johnson City & Johnson City Firefighters Ass'ngreen1 sentence2011“Under the first prong, the subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis . . . [and i]f there is some statute, decisional law or public policy that prohibits arbitration of the subject matter of dispute, then the answer to the first inquiry is no, and the claim is not arbitrable” (Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280-281 [2000] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; Matter of Village of Johnson City [Johnson City Firefighters Assn., Local 921 IAFF], 75 AD3d 817, 818 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Stategreen1 sentence2011The subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis under the first prong, and the court must determine “whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]; see Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d 273, 280 [2000]; Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplangreen1 sentence2002Fortunately, the law is well settled. 8 In First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan ( 514 US 938, 943 [1995]), the United States Supreme Court concluded that: “Just as the arbitrability of the merits of a dispute depends upon whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute, so the question ‘who has the primary power to decide arbitrability turns upon what the parties agreed about that matter. | 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 Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence2000Assn.], supra, 93 NY2d, at 137 ; Matter of Blackburne [Governor’s Off. of Empl. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Danleigh Fabrics, Inc. v. Gaynor-Stafford Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989The factor is not obligated in any way to investigate or evaluate the dispute or claim.” (Danleigh Fabrics v Gaynor-Stafford Indus., 95 AD2d 719, 720 , affd 62 NY2d 677 .) As pointed out in Garden State Yarn Corp. v Rosenthal & Rosenthal ( 99 AD2d 721, 722 ): "the factor does not purport to conduct its customer’s business for the customer; the factor merely assures the customer against loss by reason of financial inability of the buyer to pay; all other problems remain those of the factor’s customer, the plaintiff. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Garden State Yarn Corp. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989The factor is not obligated in any way to investigate or evaluate the dispute or claim.” (Danleigh Fabrics v Gaynor-Stafford Indus., 95 AD2d 719, 720 , affd 62 NY2d 677 .) As pointed out in Garden State Yarn Corp. v Rosenthal & Rosenthal ( 99 AD2d 721, 722 ): "the factor does not purport to conduct its customer’s business for the customer; the factor merely assures the customer against loss by reason of financial inability of the buyer to pay; all other problems remain those of the factor’s customer, the plaintiff. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State Bank of India v. Walter E. Heller & Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1989Accordingly, having been informed by the buyer that there was a dispute, defendant factor had an absolute right to charge the credit back.” (See also, State Bank of India v Heller & Co., 655 F Supp 326 ; Exportos Apparel Group v Chemical Bank, 593 F Supp 1253 .) The attempted amendment of the complaint to include a claim that the "bona fide or not” provision of the factoring agreement is unconscionable under UCC 2-302 is wholly without basis. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Exportos Apparel Group, Ltd. v. Chemical Bank
green
1 sentence1989Accordingly, having been informed by the buyer that there was a dispute, defendant factor had an absolute right to charge the credit back.” (See also, State Bank of India v Heller & Co., 655 F Supp 326 ; Exportos Apparel Group v Chemical Bank, 593 F Supp 1253 .) The attempted amendment of the complaint to include a claim that the "bona fide or not” provision of the factoring agreement is unconscionable under UCC 2-302 is wholly without basis. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Danleigh Fabrics, Inc. v. Gaynor-Stafford Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989The factor is not obligated in any way to investigate or evaluate the dispute or claim.” (Danleigh Fabrics v Gaynor-Stafford Indus., 95 AD2d 719, 720 , affd 62 NY2d 677 .) As pointed out in Garden State Yarn Corp. v Rosenthal & Rosenthal ( 99 AD2d 721, 722 ): "the factor does not purport to conduct its customer’s business for the customer; the factor merely assures the customer against loss by reason of financial inability of the buyer to pay; all other problems remain those of the factor’s customer, the plaintiff. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Sisters of Saint John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v. Phillips R. Geraghty Constructor, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997 ; Matter of Franklin Cent. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Scherman v. Board of Education
neutral
1 sentence1980“Prior to that time it could not be known whether he would in fact sustain any substantial damages” (Scherman v Board of Educ., 44 AD2d 831, 832 , affd 37 NY2d 839 , 840-841). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Mars Associates, Inc. v. Board of Education
neutral
1 sentence1980Considered in light of these purposes, a notice of claim should not be required unless and until there is some basis or reason for the claimant to believe that there is a dispute with his claim and that an action may be necessary to recover thereon (cf. Mars Assoc. v Board of Educ., 96 Misc 2d 393, 395 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Scherman v. BD. OF EDUC. OF SCH. DIST. NO. 1, TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD
neutral
1 sentence1980“Prior to that time it could not be known whether he would in fact sustain any substantial damages” (Scherman v Board of Educ., 44 AD2d 831, 832 , affd 37 NY2d 839 , 840-841). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.