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.
NEC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTHEASTERN OFFICE EQUIPMENT, INC., Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered December 7, 1999, which denied the petition for a stay of arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the petition to the extent of staying arbitration of those claims arising under the 1998 agreement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
We affirm the order of the IAS court insofar as it denied a stay of arbitration of the claims arising under the 1990 agreement. The broad arbitration provision in the earlier agreement survived and remained enforceable after its termination (Primex International Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 89 N.Y.2d 594, 598-599, 657 N.Y.S.2d 385, 679 N.E.2d 624). The motion court properly determined that any claims arising under the 1990 agreement must be arbitrated.
We modify to grant petitioner a stay of arbitration of those claims arising under the 1998 agreement. In the absence of an explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate, a party will not be compelled to submit disputes to arbitration (Matter of Waldron v. Goddess, 61 N.Y.2d 181, 183-184, 473 N.Y.S.2d 136, 461 N.E.2d 273). Here, the only reference to arbitration in the second agreement is the heading in Paragraph 29. There is no arbitration provision and, thus, no unequivocal manifestation of an intent to arbitrate disputes under the 1998 agreement. While the litigation clause contained in the second agreement does not supercede the parties' 1990 agreement to arbitrate, it does govern those disputes which arise under the latter contract.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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.
Decided: July 20, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)