In re the Arbitration between Bill of Fare, Inc. & King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Bill of Fare, Inc. & King

191 A.D.2d 344, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 344 (In re the Arbitration between Bill of Fare, Inc. & King) 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

In re the Arbitration between Bill of Fare, Inc. & King, 191 A.D.2d 344, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 2, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitration clause, which provides for arbitration of "any disputes as to monies due under this agreement,” clearly encompasses a claim for commissions earned prior to petitioner’s termination of the agreement. But the clause also encompasses the claim for commissions that respondent says he would have earned had petitioner not wrongfully terminated the contract, and which would necessarily require the arbitrator to decide whether petitioner breached the agreement. Respondent’s right to such prospective damages is a matter of contract interpretation to be left to the arbitrator under a broad arbitration clause (Pearl St. Dev. Corp. v Conduit & Found. Corp., 41 NY2d 167, 171). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 2, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitration clause, which provides for arbitration of "any disputes as to monies due under this agreement,” clearly encompasses a claim for commissions earned prior to petitioner’s termination of the agreement. But the clause also encompasses the claim for commissions that respondent says he would have earned had petitioner not wrongfully terminated the contract, and which would necessarily require the arbitrator to decide whether petitioner breached the agreement. Respondent’s right to such prospective damages is a matter of contract interpretation to be left to the arbitrator under a broad arbitration clause (Pearl St. Dev. Corp. v Conduit & Found. Corp., 41 NY2d 167, 171). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 344, 596 N.Y.S.2d 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-bill-of-fare-inc-king-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack