You are here: / / THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT CONTROL WHETHER THE COURT OR THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINES...
,

THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT CONTROL WHETHER THE COURT OR THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINES THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE; HERE THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE ARBITRATOR BY THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined that the contract controls and the arbitrator, not the court, must rule on whether the matter is arbitrable:

The motion court correctly declined to enjoin the arbitration proceeding filed by respondent Baltimore Orioles with the American Arbitration Association [AAA]. The duty to arbitrate arises from contract … .

Pursuant to section 19.3 of the partnership agreement, the Orioles and the Nationals agreed to arbitrate “any disputes” before the AAA when MLB has … a financial interest, and to do so pursuant to AAA Commercial Rules. Those rules include Rule 7(a), pursuant to which an “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.”

These provisions evince a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate the threshold arbitrability question of whether MLB had a financial interest in the Nationals to the AAA … . …

“When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless” … . Matter of WN Partner, LLC v Baltimore Orioles Ltd. Partnership, 2019 NY Slip Op 08383, First Dept 11-19-19

 

You might also like
Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Constructive Notice of Lead Paint/Tenant by the Entirety Could Be Vicariously Liable
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO TIMELY REDUCE THE BOND OBLIGATION TO A JUDGMENT, THEREFORE THE SURETY’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE $100,000 BAIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED; EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AS BACKGROUND FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL AND FIVE YEARS PROBATION FOR STEALING A BREAKFAST SANDWICH FROM A RESTAURANT; EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO INTERVENE DID NOT HAVE THE PROPOSED PLEADING ATTACHED; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (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

DEFENSE MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE BECAUSE... FORMAL ADMISSIONS, INFORMAL ADMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL EXPLAINED (SECOND...