A. Kingsbury Co. v. GAAP Software, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. Kingsbury Co. v. GAAP Software, Inc.

307 A.D.2d 272, 762 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8244

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 272 (A. Kingsbury Co. v. GAAP Software, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Kingsbury Co. v. GAAP Software, Inc., 307 A.D.2d 272, 762 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered August 19, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, to compel contractual arbitration of its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, to compel contractual arbitration of its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132 [1999]; Maross Constr. v Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341 [1985]; Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181 [1984]; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299 [1984]). The arbitration clause of the parties’ contract is not unconscionable (see Sablosky v Gordon Co., 73 NY2d 133, 138-139 [1989]; FGH Contr. Co. v Weiss, 185 AD2d 969, 971 [1992]; Blake v Biscardi, 62 AD2d 975 [1978]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered August 19, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, to compel contractual arbitration of its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, to compel contractual arbitration of its cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132 [1999]; Maross Constr. v Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341 [1985]; Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181 [1984]; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299 [1984]). The arbitration clause of the parties’ contract is not unconscionable (see Sablosky v Gordon Co., 73 NY2d 133, 138-139 [1989]; FGH Contr. Co. v Weiss, 185 AD2d 969, 971 [1992]; Blake v Biscardi, 62 AD2d 975 [1978]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 272, 762 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-kingsbury-co-v-gaap-software-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack