7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lieberman v. Liebermangreen1 sentence2024“If no such limitation exists, a broadly and generally phrased arbitration clause will be afforded the full import of its wording (Lieberman v Lieberman, 149 Misc 2d 983, 988 [Sup Ct, King’s County 1991]).1 Here, as noted, the Sublease contains a broad mandatory arbitration clause, providing that “[a]ny dispute, controversy or disagreement arising out of this lease between the parties or their successors in interest . . . shall be submitted to arbitration.” (Sublease ¶28). | 1 | 1 |
Smith Barney Shearson Inc. v. Sacharowgreen1 sentence2022Matter of Steyn v CRTV, LLC , 175 AD3d 1 , 11 [1st Dept 2019]; cf. Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow , 91 NY2d 39, 46 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Norris v. Coopergreen1 sentence2019Contrary to petitioners' contention that the language of the "call provision" of the partnership agreement (section 18.02) is controlling, it is the language of the arbitration clause that governs the scope of the arbitrator's authority ( Matter of Silverstein [Benmor Coats , 61 NY2d 299, 307 [1984] ["any limitation upon the power of the arbitrator must be set forth as part of the arbitration clause itself"). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
The Shaw Group Inc. v. Triplefine International Corporation
green
1 sentence2019Corp. , 322 F3d 115 [2d Cir 2003] [internal quotation marks and bracket omitted]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mulder v. Donaldson
green
1 sentence1997The language of the arbitration clause, standing on its own, is very broadly encompassing (see, Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 224 AD2d 125 ), and it would require us to change the plain meaning of that language to find an ambiguity regarding the single question of whether claims are eligible for arbitration within the NASD rules and carve it out of the clause to stand on its own. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In re Arbitration between Essenson & Upper Queens Medical Group
neutral
1 sentence1954Group], 307 N. Y. 68 .) The question of breach of contractual obligation to repay money advanced by Burkin is, in the language of the arbitration clause an “arbitrable controversy” arising “by reason of the terms of this agreement The matter of procurement of a certificate of occupancy presents no arbitrable controversy. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
In re Worcester Silk Mills Corp.
green
1 sentence1951(Cf. Matter of Worcester Silk Mills Corp., 50 F. 2d 966 .) If one of the issues to be determined is whether or not an agreement containing an arbitration clause has been cancelled, it must be determined by arbitrators if the language of the arbitration clause is sufficiently broad to express such an intention. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.