Matter of Baker v. Bajorek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Baker v. Bajorek

133 A.D.3d 421, 18 N.Y.S.3d 530

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket16054N 651664/15

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 421 (Matter of Baker v. Bajorek) 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

Matter of Baker v. Bajorek, 133 A.D.3d 421, 18 N.Y.S.3d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioners’ petition to stay an arbitration proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“[A]bsent a clear manifestation of contrary intent,” a broad arbitration clause, like the one at issue here, survives and remains enforceable after the termination of the agreement (Remco Maintenance, LLC v CC Mgt. & Consulting, Inc., 85 AD3d 477, 479 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 598-599 [1997]). The option agreement between petitioners and the corporate defendant does not evince a contrary intent.

Whether respondents’ underlying claims are arbitrable is an issue for the arbitrator to resolve (see Remco, 85 AD3d at 479-480; see also Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91, 95 [1975]). Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioners’ petition to stay an arbitration proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“[A]bsent a clear manifestation of contrary intent,” a broad arbitration clause, like the one at issue here, survives and remains enforceable after the termination of the agreement (Remco Maintenance, LLC v CC Mgt. & Consulting, Inc., 85 AD3d 477, 479 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 598-599 [1997]). The option agreement between petitioners and the corporate defendant does not evince a contrary intent.

Whether respondents’ underlying claims are arbitrable is an issue for the arbitrator to resolve (see Remco, 85 AD3d at 479-480; see also Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91, 95 [1975]). Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Acosta, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 421, 18 N.Y.S.3d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-baker-v-bajorek-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack