Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Jane Solomon, issued a judgment on June 29, 1995, that granted the petitioner a permanent stay of arbitration regarding the respondent’s claims related to a bond purchased before February 20, 1989. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court concluded that the New York choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement did not explicitly state that the agreement and its enforcement would be governed by New York law, nor did it incorporate New York arbitration law. Consequently, the issue of the timeliness of the claims was determined to be the responsibility of the arbitrators rather than the court. Key precedents cited include Hamershlag Kempner Co. v Oestrich, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v Luckie, and Goldberg v Parker. The ruling was concurred by Justices Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli, and Mazzarelli.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitration Agreement Choice of Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the New York choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement did not explicitly govern the agreement and its enforcement by New York law, nor did it incorporate New York arbitration law.
Reasoning: The appellate court concluded that the New York choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement did not explicitly state that the agreement and its enforcement would be governed by New York law, nor did it incorporate New York arbitration law.
Responsibility for Determining Timeliness of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the determination of the timeliness of the claims should be made by the arbitrators, not the court, due to the lack of explicit language in the arbitration agreement incorporating New York arbitration law.
Reasoning: Consequently, the issue of the timeliness of the claims was determined to be the responsibility of the arbitrators rather than the court.