Broadcast News Networks, Inc. v. Loeb & Loeb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broadcast News Networks, Inc. v. Loeb & Loeb

40 A.D.3d 441, 834 N.Y.S.2d 6561

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 441 (Broadcast News Networks, Inc. v. Loeb & Loeb) 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

Broadcast News Networks, Inc. v. Loeb & Loeb, 40 A.D.3d 441, 834 N.Y.S.2d 6561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J), entered August 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to stay plaintiffs legal malpractice action pending arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted defendants’ motion to stay plaintiffs action alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice on the part of defendants. When it retained the services of defendants, the commercially sophisticated plaintiff executed an engagement letter clearly advising it that any and all disputes between the parties were to be resolved at arbitration. The arbitration provision was clear and unambiguous, and not violative of public policy (see Nasso v Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 19 AD3d 465 [2005], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 827 [2007]; and see Matter of Derfner & Mahler v Rhoades, 257 AD2d 431 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J), entered August 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to stay plaintiffs legal malpractice action pending arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted defendants’ motion to stay plaintiffs action alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice on the part of defendants. When it retained the services of defendants, the commercially sophisticated plaintiff executed an engagement letter clearly advising it that any and all disputes between the parties were to be resolved at arbitration. The arbitration provision was clear and unambiguous, and not violative of public policy (see Nasso v Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 19 AD3d 465 [2005], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 827 [2007]; and see Matter of Derfner & Mahler v Rhoades, 257 AD2d 431 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 441, 834 N.Y.S.2d 6561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadcast-news-networks-inc-v-loeb-loeb-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack