Hamershlag, Kempner & Co. v. Oestrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamershlag, Kempner & Co. v. Oestrich

234 A.D.2d 172, 651 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12555

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 172 (Hamershlag, Kempner & Co. v. Oestrich) 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

Hamershlag, Kempner & Co. v. Oestrich, 234 A.D.2d 172, 651 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered May 3, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, made on the grounds that certain of respondent’s claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations and that the [173]*173punitive damages claim is not arbitrable under New York law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the New York choice of law provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not explicitly provide that the agreement "and its enforcement” would be governed by New York law, and did not otherwise expressly incorporate New York arbitration law, the question of timeliness of the claims was for the arbitrators, not the court (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; Goldberg v Parker, 221 AD2d 267). Denial of the stay of respondent’s punitive damages claim was likewise proper, since the parties’ arbitration agreement did not unequivocally exclude such relief, nor did the general choice of law clause function to incorporate New York’s "special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators” (Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 US 52, 64; Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 224 AD2d 125). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered May 3, 1996, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, made on the grounds that certain of respondent’s claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations and that the [173]*173punitive damages claim is not arbitrable under New York law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the New York choice of law provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not explicitly provide that the agreement "and its enforcement” would be governed by New York law, and did not otherwise expressly incorporate New York arbitration law, the question of timeliness of the claims was for the arbitrators, not the court (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; Goldberg v Parker, 221 AD2d 267). Denial of the stay of respondent’s punitive damages claim was likewise proper, since the parties’ arbitration agreement did not unequivocally exclude such relief, nor did the general choice of law clause function to incorporate New York’s "special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators” (Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 US 52, 64; Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 224 AD2d 125). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 172, 651 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamershlag-kempner-co-v-oestrich-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack