In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.

357 N.E.2d 1006, 40 N.Y.2d 897, 389 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3070
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 21, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 357 N.E.2d 1006 (In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc., 357 N.E.2d 1006, 40 N.Y.2d 897, 389 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3070 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division, with the following added comments: Appellant Praetorian Realty seeks to avoid arbitration on the ground that the agreement provides that only certain of its clauses are to survive the delivery of title and, further, that the claims asserted by respondent Presidential Towers fall within those clauses which did not survive the delivery of title. This argument raises an issue addressed to the merits of those claims, and is therefore within the province of the arbitrator. The arbitration clause is concededly broad, encompassing "Any and all disputes of whatsoever kind and nature arising out of * * * this agreement”, and the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration clause would survive the delivery of title. Once the courts have performed the "initial screening process”, determining that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the subject matter in dispute, their role has ended and they may not proceed to decide whether particular claims are tenable (see Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer, 37 NY2d 91, 96). Thus, appellant’s contention, that respondent’s claims are barred by the merger doctrine in real property law and by certain provisions of the agreement, is properly for the consideration of the arbitrator and not the courts.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Matter of Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman
2017 NY Slip Op 5192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Markowits v. Friedman
2016 NY Slip Op 7932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Ferrarella v. Godt
131 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Isaacs v. Prospect Park, LLC
95 A.D.3d 1176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Spatz v. Ridge Lea Associates, LLC
309 A.D.2d 1248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Eric Riebling Co. v. Martin Woodworking Machines Corp.
294 A.D.2d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Brown v. Bussey
245 A.D.2d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Dazco Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v. C.B.C. Industries, Inc.
225 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Blatt v. Sochet
199 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Herrero
168 A.D.2d 343 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Columbia-Oxford Beverages, Inc.
100 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Information Sciences, Inc. v. Mohawk Data Science Corp.
56 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 N.E.2d 1006, 40 N.Y.2d 897, 389 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-praetorian-realty-corp-presidential-towers-ny-1976.