DART SEASONAL PRODUCTS INC v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered January 19, 2024, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documents confirm that the purchase order at issue was not a separate agreement but part of the parties’ 2016 contract.  As such, the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) provisions of that contract applied to the purchase order (cf.  Navillus Tile, Inc. v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 74 A.D.3d 1299, 1301–1302, 904 N.Y.S.2d 207 [2d Dept. 2010]).

The provisions of the contract providing for a New York forum are not inconsistent with the ADR provisions and are readily harmonized (see Isaacs v. Westchester Wood Works, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 184, 185, 718 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1st Dept. 2000] [“The purpose of the exclusive jurisdiction provision was simply to fix the required venue of applications to compel arbitration or confirm or reject arbitration awards”]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the 2016 contract was properly considered as documentary evidence, as it was authenticated by an affiant with personal knowledge of the agreement (see Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v. Sanitation Salvage Corp., 187 A.D.3d 537, 537, 130 N.Y.S.3d 665 [1st Dept. 2020]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.