Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Patricia Whitelock, appellant, v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, et al., respondents.
Argued—February 28, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite- Nelson, J.), entered August 12, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“[I]n the commercial context generally, the rule is clear that unless the agreement to arbitrate expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute, a party cannot be compelled to forego the right to seek judicial relief and instead submit to arbitration” (Bowmer v. Bowmer, 50 N.Y.2d 288, 293–294; see Sammarco v Pepsi–Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 1 AD3d 341, 342; Computer Assoc. Intl. v. Com–Tech Assoc., 239 A.D.2d 379, 380–381). The burden of proof is on the party seeking arbitration (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Roseboro, 247 A.D.2d 379, 380; Matter of American Centennial Ins. Co. v Williams, 233 A.D.2d 320). Here, the defendants satisfied their burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate which expressly and unequivocally encompassed the subject matter of the plaintiff's claims (see Bowmer v. Bowmer, 50 N.Y.2d at 293–294; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Roseboro, 247 A.D.2d at 380). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.
COVELLO, J.P., DICKERSON, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–09064 (Index No. 32302 /09)
Decided: March 29, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)