You are here: / / Arbitrator Not Precluded from Considering Punitive Damages by Provision...
,

Arbitrator Not Precluded from Considering Punitive Damages by Provision that the Agreement Is To Be “Construed and Enforced” in Accordance with New York Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over an extensive dissent, the First Department determined that the provision in an agreement covering arbitration of disputes stating that the agreement is to be “construed and enforced” in accordance with New York law did not necessarily preclude the arbitrator from considering punitive damages.  The court found the language in the agreement insufficiently specific to invoke the “Garrity rule. ” Under “Garrity,” arbitrators in New York are prohibited from considering punitive damages. But the Federal Arbitration Act, which may apply here because of the involvement of interstate commerce, does not. The court also noted that participation in arbitration precludes a party from seeking a stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503. The choice of law issue is framed by the following passages:

Merely stating, without further elaboration, that an agreement is to be construed and enforced in accordance with the law of New York does not suffice to invoke the Garrity rule. The Supreme Court has made clear that in order to remove the issue of punitive damages from the arbitrators, the agreement must “unequivocal[ly] exclu[de]” the claim … . The agreement in this case, which provided only that it was to be “construed and enforced” in accordance with the law of New York, did not unequivocally exclude claims for punitive damages from the consideration of the arbitrators

From the dissent:

The core issue in this case – an appeal from an order denying petitioners’ motion to stay arbitration of claims for punitive damages – relates to the tension between New York State policy against the privatization of punitive damages and the federal policy that there is no such prohibition. Specifically, under New York State law, as expressed by Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc. (40 NY2d 354 [1976]), the power to award punitive damages is limited to judicial tribunals, and is not within an arbitrator’s authority… . Conversely, the federal view, as reflected in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),… which applies to arbitration disputes concerning interstate commerce, generally empowers arbitrators to award punitive damages, absent a contractual intent to the contrary. Unlike the majority, I find that, while the agreement here evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce, the provision stating that the agreement is to be “construed and enforced” in accordance with the laws of New York suffices to invoke the Garrity rule. Therefore, I dissent and would grant petitioners’ motion to stay arbitration of the claims for punitive damages. Matter of Flintlock Constr Servs LLC v Weiss, 2014 NY Slip Op 05818, 8-14-14

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CROSSED INTO HIS PATH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXCUSE FOR LATE FILING WAS INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY DEFENDANTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE 11-MONTH DELAY IN FILING (FIRST DEPT).
​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT). ​
SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR WORK WHEN A PERMANENT LADDER IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ALLEGEDLY VIBRATED CAUSING HIM TO FALL; EVEN IF A HARNESS WERE AVAILABLE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pointing Finger and Saying “I’m Going to Shoot You” Did Not... Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment...