mutuality rule in New York

1989Since it is settled that the validity of an arbitration agreement is to be determined by the law applicable to contracts generally (Matter of Zimmerman [Cohen], 236 NY 15, 19 ), there is no reason for a different mutuality rule in arbitration cases.

1989Moreover, recognition that mutuality of remedy is not required in arbitration is logically consistent with our recent statement in Weiner v McGrawHill, Inc. ( 57 NY2d 458 ) that "while coextensive promises may constitute consideration for each other, 'mutuality’, in the sense of requiring such reciprocity, is not necessary when a promisor receives other valid consideration” (id., at 464).

1983In any lawsuit where a defendant, because of the mutuality principle, is forced to present a complete defense on the merits to a claim which the plaintiff has fully litigated and lost in a prior action, there is an arguable misallocation of resources.” While conceding that the jury trial is less an engine for the scientific ascertainment of ultimate truth than a mechanism for finally resolving disputes between citizens, the Supreme Court of Oregon anticipated the United States Supreme Court’s concern in Parklane Hosiery Co. v Shore (supra), by remarking that “we are not free to disregard incon

1979(CPLR 4502, subd [b]; People v Wood, 126 NY 249, 271 ; Parkhurst v Berdell, 110 NY 386, 393 ; cf. Poppe v Poppe, supra, at pp 314, 315 .) Such a mutuality of privilege must exist in a parent-child situation, as well (Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d, at p 435, n 9) as by its nature, the family relationship forms a common bond wherein the interests of the parties are similar, i.e., maintenance of the sanctity of the family, and injury by the State to one party of such familial unit effectually acts against all.

1979(CPLR 4502, subd [b]; People v Wood, 126 NY 249, 271 ; Parkhurst v Berdell, 110 NY 386, 393 ; cf. Poppe v Poppe, supra, at pp 314, 315 .) Such a mutuality of privilege must exist in a parent-child situation, as well (Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d, at p 435, n 9) as by its nature, the family relationship forms a common bond wherein the interests of the parties are similar, i.e., maintenance of the sanctity of the family, and injury by the State to one party of such familial unit effectually acts against all.

1968Upon facts substantially the same as here, and upon a similar motion, the court granted partial summary judgment so as to find that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, while reserving for the trial the issues of contributory negligence and damages (Quick v. O’Connell, 53 Misc 2d 1091 ).

1967In 1942 in a perceptive and, as later events proved, far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court of California decided the case of Bernhard v. Bank of America ( 19 Cal. 2d 807 [Traynor, J., now Chief Justice]).

1926(Atlantic Dock Go. v. Mayor, 53 N. Y. 64, 68 ; Booth v. Powers, 56 id. 22; Nelson v. Brown, 144 id. 384, 390; St.