Whitelock v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC

82 A.D.3d 1212, 919 N.Y.2d 857
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

“[I]n the commercial context generally, the rule is clear that unless the agreement to arbitrate expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute, a party cannot be compelled to forego the right to seek judicial relief and instead submit to arbitration” (Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d 288, 293-294 [1980]; see Sammarco v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 1 AD3d 341, 342 [2003]; Computer Assoc. Intl. v Com-Tech Assoc., 239 AD2d 379, 380-381 [1997]). The burden of proof is on the party seeking arbitration (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Roseboro, 247 AD2d 379, 380 [1998]; Matter of American Centennial Ins. Co. v Williams, 233 AD2d 320 [1996]). Here, the defendants satisfied their burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate which expressly and unequivocally encompassed the subject matter of the plaintiff s claims (see Bowmer v Bowmer, 50 NY2d at 293-294; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Roseboro, 247 AD2d at 380). Accordingly, the [1213]*1213Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. Covello, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Whitelock v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1212, 919 N.Y.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 1212 (Whitelock v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cipri v. Matrix Sports Club, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Wolf v. Hollis Operating Co., LLC
180 N.Y.S.3d 228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)