VR Capital Group Ltd. v. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VR Capital Group Ltd. v. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.

139 A.D.3d 519, 30 N.Y.S.3d 544

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 17, 2016·No. 1169N 653259/15·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 29, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the issue sought to be submitted to arbitration fell within the scope of the agreement’s broad arbitration clause (see Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 69 AD3d 439, 439 [1st Dept 2010]).

Defendant’s failure to provide plaintiff with the requisite notice that it intended to rely on the agreement’s automatic renewal provision rendered that provision unenforceable, but, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not invalidate the agreement (see General Obligation Law § 5-903 [2]; Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P., 77 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 753 [2012]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 29, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the issue sought to be submitted to arbitration fell within the scope of the agreement’s broad arbitration clause (see Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 69 AD3d 439, 439 [1st Dept 2010]).

Defendant’s failure to provide plaintiff with the requisite notice that it intended to rely on the agreement’s automatic renewal provision rendered that provision unenforceable, but, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not invalidate the agreement (see General Obligation Law § 5-903 [2]; Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P., 77 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 753 [2012]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels and Gesmer, JJ.

VR Capital Group Ltd. v. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., 139 A.D.3d 519, 30 N.Y.S.3d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

139 A.D.3d 519 (VR Capital Group Ltd. v. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related