Accessory Corp. v. Capco Wai Shing, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Accessory Corp. v. Capco Wai Shing, LLC

39 A.D.3d 344, 834 N.Y.S.2d 139

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 344 (Accessory Corp. v. Capco Wai Shing, LLC) 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

Accessory Corp. v. Capco Wai Shing, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 344, 834 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered August 18, 2006, which denied defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While arbitration is favored as a matter of public policy (see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 49 [1997]), and the license agreement between defendant Wai Shing Elastic Hangars (Wai) and plaintiff contained an arbitration clause pursuant to which there is a pending arbitration relating to Wai’s purported wrongdoing under the contract, “a party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes” (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183 [1984] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]). [345]*345Here, plaintiff never agreed to arbitrate with the individual defendants or defendant Capeo Wai Shing, LLC, and the claims asserted in this action do not arise out of, or in any way relate to, the licensing agreement between Wai and plaintiff. Indeed, the allegations in this action primarily assert intentional torts occurring subsequent to the licensing agreement’s termination.

In any event, even had defendants possessed a right to compel arbitration of this dispute, their participation in discovery would have constituted an affirmative acceptance of the judicial forum, with a concomitant waiver of any right to arbitration (see Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 272 [1985]; De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 [1974]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered August 18, 2006, which denied defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While arbitration is favored as a matter of public policy (see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 49 [1997]), and the license agreement between defendant Wai Shing Elastic Hangars (Wai) and plaintiff contained an arbitration clause pursuant to which there is a pending arbitration relating to Wai’s purported wrongdoing under the contract, “a party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes” (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183 [1984] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]). [345]*345Here, plaintiff never agreed to arbitrate with the individual defendants or defendant Capeo Wai Shing, LLC, and the claims asserted in this action do not arise out of, or in any way relate to, the licensing agreement between Wai and plaintiff. Indeed, the allegations in this action primarily assert intentional torts occurring subsequent to the licensing agreement’s termination.

In any event, even had defendants possessed a right to compel arbitration of this dispute, their participation in discovery would have constituted an affirmative acceptance of the judicial forum, with a concomitant waiver of any right to arbitration (see Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 272 [1985]; De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 [1974]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 344, 834 N.Y.S.2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accessory-corp-v-capco-wai-shing-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack