IN RE: LORICA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC (2026)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to compel respondent to arbitrate before an American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitrator selected from the AAA's commercial panel under the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Parties may contract for the method of selecting arbitrators and for the composition of the arbitral tribunal (see Matter of TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC, 40 N.Y.3d 71, 84, 194 N.Y.S.3d 191, 214 N.E.3d 1137 [2023] ).  However, the dispute resolution clause at issue here does not specify any requirement that disputes be arbitrated before a particular type of arbitrator or panel.  Rather, the agreement provides for arbitration “in accordance with the AAA Commercial Rules,” with no limitation on the AAA rule explicitly stating that parties are deemed to have agreed to those rules, including any amendments, “in the form in effect at the time the administrative requirements are met for a Demand for Arbitration.”

Petitioner argues that the court should have decided whether amendments to the AAA Commercial Rules impermissibly altered the parties' agreement to the extent that applying those amendments resulted in AAA's preliminary assignment of this matter to its Employment Division.  However, resolving that question would require the court to interpret the meaning and effect of AAA's rules and amendments, including AAA's provisional determination to route the matter to the Employment Division, subject to final resolution by the appointed arbitrator.  Interpretation of AAA rules, both as they existed at the time of contracting and as amended at the time of a party's arbitration demand, is a matter committed to AAA or the arbitrator, not the courts (see CSP Tech., Inc. v. Hekal, 57 A.D.3d 372, 373, 869 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2008] ).

Even assuming petitioner's contract-based challenge ultimately raises a legal issue capable of judicial review, the issue is not ripe.  The record does not show that AAA issued a final determination as to petitioner's arguments.  The arbitrator designated under AAA's routing decision has not yet addressed the threshold questions concerning the applicable rules and arbitrator qualifications.  Under these circumstances, judicial intervention would constitute premature review of AAA's internal procedural determinations.