6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howardgreen1 sentence2013The Court set forth that, once the trial court determined that a contract binding the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, “it is a mainstay of the Act’s substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself, are to be resolved by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state court.” (568 US at —, 133 S Ct at 503 [internal quotation marks omitted].) A careful review of the history of the parties’ commercial relationship, as well as the documents commencing from the July 2, 2003 supplier | 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 |
|---|---|---|
De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer
green
2 sentences2002While the party who commences an action may be assumed to have waived any right it may have had to submit the issues to arbitration, this assumption does not apply to a defendant (see De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 ). 1983(Matter of Brookfield Clothes v Tandler Textiles, 78 AD2d 841 .) However, where a party who has agreed to arbitrate makes affirmative use of the judicial process, that affirmative use may constitute a waiver of his right to compel arbitration pursuant to that agreement (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402 ). | 2 | 1983–2002 |
Revis v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences2025The FAA will preempt a state law that requires a dispute to be resolved by the courts despite the existence of a valid arbitration clause ( see Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d at 133 ). 2025The FAA will preempt a state law that requires a dispute to be resolved by the courts despite the existence of a valid arbitration clause ( see Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d at 133 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
green
1 sentence2016In Monarch, the Court of Appeals held that the issue of whether the parties’ underlying dispute, regarding the validity of workers’ compensation payment contracts and their arbitration clauses should be decided by the courts or in arbitration belonged, in the first instance, to the arbitrators ( 26 NY3d at 675 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002In this matter, plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising out of their employment and “all other employment related issues.” The fact that a class action lawsuit, as plaintiffs contemplate, may be a less costly alternative to arbitration (which is generally less costly than litigation) does not alter the binding effect of the valid arbitration clause contained in the application for employment (see Brower v Gateway 2000, 246 AD2d 246, 253 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Harris v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998The IAS Court found that while a class action lawsuit, such as the one herein, may be a less costly alternative to the arbitration (which is generally less costly than litigation), that does not alter the binding effect of the valid arbitration clause contained in the agreement (see, Harris v Shearson Hayden Stone, 82 AD2d 87, 92-93 , affd 56 NY2d 627 for reasons stated below, see also, Matter of Ball [SFX Broadcasting], 236 AD2d 158 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 921 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In re the Arbitration between Ball & SFX Broadcasting, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998The IAS Court found that while a class action lawsuit, such as the one herein, may be a less costly alternative to the arbitration (which is generally less costly than litigation), that does not alter the binding effect of the valid arbitration clause contained in the agreement (see, Harris v Shearson Hayden Stone, 82 AD2d 87, 92-93 , affd 56 NY2d 627 for reasons stated below, see also, Matter of Ball [SFX Broadcasting], 236 AD2d 158 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 921 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Harris v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1998The IAS Court found that while a class action lawsuit, such as the one herein, may be a less costly alternative to the arbitration (which is generally less costly than litigation), that does not alter the binding effect of the valid arbitration clause contained in the agreement (see, Harris v Shearson Hayden Stone, 82 AD2d 87, 92-93 , affd 56 NY2d 627 for reasons stated below, see also, Matter of Ball [SFX Broadcasting], 236 AD2d 158 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 921 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.
green
1 sentence1998As a general matter, under New York law, unconscionability requires a showing that a contract is “both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made” (Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Brookfield Clothes, Inc. v. Tandler Textiles, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983(Matter of Brookfield Clothes v Tandler Textiles, 78 AD2d 841 .) However, where a party who has agreed to arbitrate makes affirmative use of the judicial process, that affirmative use may constitute a waiver of his right to compel arbitration pursuant to that agreement (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.