Kopple v. Stonebrook Fund Management, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopple v. Stonebrook Fund Management, LLC

18 A.D.3d 329, 794 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5449

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

DecidedMay 19, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 329 (Kopple v. Stonebrook Fund Management, LLC) 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

Kopple v. Stonebrook Fund Management, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 329, 794 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 13, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, granted defendant’s cross motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate constituted consideration sufficient to support the arbitration agreement (see Blair v Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F3d 595, 603-604 [3d Cir 2002], citing Michalski v Circuit City Stores, Inc., 177 F3d 634, 637 [7th Cir 1999], and Johnson v Circuit City Stores, 148 F3d 373, 378 [4th Cir 1998]; see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Johnson, 354 Ill App 3d 885, 893-894, 822 NE2d 30, 37 [2004]; J.M. Davidson, Inc. v Webster, 128 SW3d 223, 228 [Tex Sup Ct 2003]; Lagatree v Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 74 Cal App 4th 1105, 1126-1127, 88 Cal Rptr 2d 664, 680 [1999], review denied 2000 Cal LEXIS 262 [Cal Sup Ct 2000]). The subject agreement between these sophisticated parties, in which plaintiff acknowledged having had the opportunity to consult with advisors before signing, was not a contract of adhesion. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 13, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, granted defendant’s cross motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate constituted consideration sufficient to support the arbitration agreement (see Blair v Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F3d 595, 603-604 [3d Cir 2002], citing Michalski v Circuit City Stores, Inc., 177 F3d 634, 637 [7th Cir 1999], and Johnson v Circuit City Stores, 148 F3d 373, 378 [4th Cir 1998]; see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Johnson, 354 Ill App 3d 885, 893-894, 822 NE2d 30, 37 [2004]; J.M. Davidson, Inc. v Webster, 128 SW3d 223, 228 [Tex Sup Ct 2003]; Lagatree v Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 74 Cal App 4th 1105, 1126-1127, 88 Cal Rptr 2d 664, 680 [1999], review denied 2000 Cal LEXIS 262 [Cal Sup Ct 2000]). The subject agreement between these sophisticated parties, in which plaintiff acknowledged having had the opportunity to consult with advisors before signing, was not a contract of adhesion. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 329, 794 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopple-v-stonebrook-fund-management-llc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack