In re the Arbitration between Polar Entertainment Corp. & Directors Guild of America, Inc.

189 A.D.2d 711
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 711 (In re the Arbitration between Polar Entertainment Corp. & Directors Guild of America, Inc.) 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 Polar Entertainment Corp. & Directors Guild of America, Inc., 189 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered January 14, 1992, staying arbitration demanded by respondents for unpaid wages and fringe benefit contributions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding the strong policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes, arbitration must be stayed where a prior agreement providing for arbitration has expired and the superseding agreement does not contain a clear agreement to arbitrate (Litton Fin. Print. Div. v National Labor Relations Bd., 501 US —, 111 S Ct 2215). Here, the services contract between petitioner producer and respondent director did not contain an arbitration clause but instead referred to the "now-current” Directors Guild Agreement, i.e., the 1984 Basic Agreement that expired before respondent had performed any services. Although the superseding 1987 Basic Agreement, like the one it replaced, contained an arbitration clause, petitioner producer is not a signatory thereto, and, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, it would require too much "implication or subtlety” to find an agreement to arbitrate in the 1989 amendments to the services contract (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181,184).

The determination of whether there is a clear, unequivocal and extant agreement to arbitrate the disputed claims at the time they arose is a question for the court and not the arbitrator (see, Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross, and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Primex International Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
227 A.D.2d 219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Arbitration between Bunzl
224 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
D'Addario v. Weinstein
211 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 A.D.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-polar-entertainment-corp-directors-guild-nyappdiv-1993.