TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.

In the Matter of the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp., and Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.

In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, 357 N.E.2d 1006 (N.Y. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 21, 1976
Citations
357 N.E.2d 100640 N.Y.2d 897389 N.Y.S.2d 3511976 N.Y. LEXIS 3070

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division, with the following added comments: Appellant Praetorian Realty seeks to avoid arbitration on the ground that the agreement provides that only certain of its clauses are to survive the delivery of title and, further, that the claims asserted by respondent Presidential Towers fall within those clauses which did not survive the delivery of title. This argument raises an issue addressed to the merits of those claims, and is therefore within the province of the arbitrator. The arbitration clause is concededly broad, encompassing "Any and all disputes of whatsoever kind and nature arising out of * * * this agreement”, and the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration clause would survive the delivery of title. Once the courts have performed the "initial screening process”, determining that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the subject matter in dispute, their role has ended and they may not proceed to decide whether particular claims are tenable (see Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer, 37 NY2d 91, 96 ). Thus, appellant’s contention, that respondent’s claims are barred by the merger doctrine in real property law and by certain provisions of the agreement, is properly for the consideration of the arbitrator and not the courts.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 11984: 11990: 11993: 11996: 11997: 12002: 12003: 12012: 12015: 12016: 12017: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Markowits v. Friedman2016 NY Slip Op 7932
  2. Ferrarella v. Godt131 A.D.3d 563 (2015)
  3. Dazco Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v. C.B.C. Industries, Inc.225 A.D.2d 578 (1996)
  4. Blatt v. Sochet199 A.D.2d 451 (1993)
  5. Brown v. Bussey245 A.D.2d 255 (1997)
  6. Spatz v. Ridge Lea Associates, LLC309 A.D.2d 1248 (2003)

Most recent

  1. Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman2017 NY Slip Op 5192
  2. Markowits v. Friedman2016 NY Slip Op 7932
  3. Ferrarella v. Godt131 A.D.3d 563 (2015)
  4. Isaacs v. Prospect Park, LLC95 A.D.3d 1176 (2012)
  5. Spatz v. Ridge Lea Associates, LLC309 A.D.2d 1248 (2003)
  6. Eric Riebling Co. v. Martin Woodworking Machines Corp.294 A.D.2d 465 (2002)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nationwide Gen. Ins. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 332 N.E.2d 333 (N.Y. 1975) 189

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list