Days Impex Ltd. v. Solomon Blum Heymann & Stich LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Days Impex Ltd. v. Solomon Blum Heymann & Stich LLP

73 A.D.3d 615, 900 N.Y.S.2d 647

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 615 (Days Impex Ltd. v. Solomon Blum Heymann & Stich LLP) 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

Days Impex Ltd. v. Solomon Blum Heymann & Stich LLP, 73 A.D.3d 615, 900 N.Y.S.2d 647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered October 28, 2009, which denied the petition for a permanent injunction staying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration clause in the contract was clear, explicit and unequivocal, and thus should be fully enforced. Petitioner, whose principal reviewed and signed two retainer agreements containing the arbitration clause, did not demonstrate a failure on its part to understand the implications of the provision (Arrowhead Golf Club, LLC v Bryan Cave, LLP, 59 AD3d 347 [2009]).

Inasmuch as the agreement to arbitrate is binding and enforceable, petitioner’s remaining arguments on enforceability of the indemnification provision should be raised before the arbitrator. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered October 28, 2009, which denied the petition for a permanent injunction staying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration clause in the contract was clear, explicit and unequivocal, and thus should be fully enforced. Petitioner, whose principal reviewed and signed two retainer agreements containing the arbitration clause, did not demonstrate a failure on its part to understand the implications of the provision (Arrowhead Golf Club, LLC v Bryan Cave, LLP, 59 AD3d 347 [2009]).

Inasmuch as the agreement to arbitrate is binding and enforceable, petitioner’s remaining arguments on enforceability of the indemnification provision should be raised before the arbitrator. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 615, 900 N.Y.S.2d 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/days-impex-ltd-v-solomon-blum-heymann-stich-llp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack