New York Rowing Ass'n v. Peter Jay Sharp Boathouse, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Rowing Ass'n v. Peter Jay Sharp Boathouse, Inc.

92 A.D.3d 595, 939 N.Y.2d 41

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 595 (New York Rowing Ass'n v. Peter Jay Sharp Boathouse, 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

New York Rowing Ass'n v. Peter Jay Sharp Boathouse, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 595, 939 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[596]*596The parties’ agreement, whereby NYRA would manage operations at appellants’ boathouse for 10 years, beginning in 2003, expressly provided that NYRA could seek arbitration of default disputes arising from NYRA’s intentional breach of any provision in the parties’ management agreement (cf. Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288 [1980]). Here, the appellants, in July 2011, served NYRA with a notice terminating its management services for NYRA’s alleged failure to pay them an annual asset management fee, from 2009 through 2011, in accordance with the agreement’s terms. NYRA filed for arbitration and, in support of its instant motion, submitted evidence that demonstrated its intentional breach of the obligation to pay the annual asset management fee. The evidence showed that, from 2007 through 2008, appellants’ executive director had stated that the fee was “waived” and, thereafter, appellants themselves allegedly “breached” the parties’ management agreement when they unilaterally terminated it in June 2009, effective “immediately,” relying on grounds that did not constitute a material default under the terms of the agreement. Moreover, NYRA asserts that it had no obligation to pay the annual asset management fee from 2009 through 2011 because appellants not only terminated the parties’ agreement, but, as in the past years, appellants never provided any “advisory services” to earn the right to an annual fee, as per the terms of the management agreement.

Such disputes are covered under the parties’ arbitration clause. Furthermore, language in the agreement that expressly authorizes recourse to injunctive relief to maintain the status quo pending an arbitration award is enforceable (see e.g. Matter of Slepian v Beanstalk Rests., 75 AD2d 749 [1980]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[596]*596The parties’ agreement, whereby NYRA would manage operations at appellants’ boathouse for 10 years, beginning in 2003, expressly provided that NYRA could seek arbitration of default disputes arising from NYRA’s intentional breach of any provision in the parties’ management agreement (cf. Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288 [1980]). Here, the appellants, in July 2011, served NYRA with a notice terminating its management services for NYRA’s alleged failure to pay them an annual asset management fee, from 2009 through 2011, in accordance with the agreement’s terms. NYRA filed for arbitration and, in support of its instant motion, submitted evidence that demonstrated its intentional breach of the obligation to pay the annual asset management fee. The evidence showed that, from 2007 through 2008, appellants’ executive director had stated that the fee was “waived” and, thereafter, appellants themselves allegedly “breached” the parties’ management agreement when they unilaterally terminated it in June 2009, effective “immediately,” relying on grounds that did not constitute a material default under the terms of the agreement. Moreover, NYRA asserts that it had no obligation to pay the annual asset management fee from 2009 through 2011 because appellants not only terminated the parties’ agreement, but, as in the past years, appellants never provided any “advisory services” to earn the right to an annual fee, as per the terms of the management agreement.

Such disputes are covered under the parties’ arbitration clause. Furthermore, language in the agreement that expressly authorizes recourse to injunctive relief to maintain the status quo pending an arbitration award is enforceable (see e.g. Matter of Slepian v Beanstalk Rests., 75 AD2d 749 [1980]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 595, 939 N.Y.2d 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-rowing-assn-v-peter-jay-sharp-boathouse-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack