You are here: / / WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE...
, ,

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue which must be determined by the court, not the arbitrator:

… [T]he petitioners raised a threshold issue regarding the validity of the purported agreement to arbitrate, as they contended that they did not sign, and that neither Graves nor AMF had the authority to sign, any contract on their behalf concerning the purported transaction involving the respondents. Thus, this threshold issue was for the Supreme Court, rather than an arbitrator, to determine … . Matter of Northeast & Cent. Contrs., Inc. v Quanto Capital, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01791, Second Dept 3-16-22

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians
Late Notice of Claim Denied—Infancy Alone Not Sufficient Reason to Allow Late Notice
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecutor’s Circumvention of the Bruton Rule Required Reversal
Where Deportation As a Result of a Guilty Plea Is Not Mentioned by the Court, Preservation of the Error Is Not Required
Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained
DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained

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

SUN GLARE DID NOT CREATE AN EMERGENCY FOR THE BUS DRIVER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF... THE TIMELY FILING OF A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN TO CORRECT PROBLEMS WITH...