BDO USA, LLP v. Field

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BDO USA, LLP v. Field

79 A.D.3d 604, 912 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 604 (BDO USA, LLP v. Field) 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

BDO USA, LLP v. Field, 79 A.D.3d 604, 912 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which, inter alia, denied the petition to stay arbitration and to modify the subject arbitration agreement, and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The provision of the amendment to settlement agreement that states that “the arbitrator shall decide the dispute based on a written submission from each Party and a non-evidentiary hearing” was not unconscionable (see generally Yonir Tech., Inc. v Duration Sys. [1992] Ltd., 244 F Supp 2d 195, 209 [SD NY 2002]). The provision was neither the result of disparate bargaining power nor “grossly unreasonable” under the circumstances (see Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and [605]*605find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which, inter alia, denied the petition to stay arbitration and to modify the subject arbitration agreement, and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The provision of the amendment to settlement agreement that states that “the arbitrator shall decide the dispute based on a written submission from each Party and a non-evidentiary hearing” was not unconscionable (see generally Yonir Tech., Inc. v Duration Sys. [1992] Ltd., 244 F Supp 2d 195, 209 [SD NY 2002]). The provision was neither the result of disparate bargaining power nor “grossly unreasonable” under the circumstances (see Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and [605]*605find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 604, 912 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bdo-usa-llp-v-field-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack