From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allegro Resorts Corp. v. Trans-Americainvest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 2003
1 A.D.3d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

In Allegro, the First Department affirmed an order staying arbitration because the party against whom arbitration was sought had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause (id. at 270).

Summary of this case from In re Seigfreid Bingham, P.C.

Opinion

2283N

November 20, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered August 12, 2003, which granted petitioner guarantor's application to stay an arbitration demanded by respondent landlord insofar as the demand included the guarantor as well as the guarantor's principal, the landlord's tenant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Patrick P. Salisbury, for petitioner-respondent.

E. Leo Milonas, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.


The IAS court correctly held that the guarantor is not a party to the lease agreement containing the arbitration clause. Although mentioned on the cover page and first paragraph of the lease, the remainder of the lease throughout provides that it is between the landlord and the tenant only, and nowhere does it refer to "all parties" rather than "both parties." In addition, the guarantor did not sign any part of the body of the lease (compare Development Bank of Philippines v. Chemtex Fibers, 617 F. Supp. 55, 56), but only the guarantee itself, which does not contain an arbitration clause, refers to the "foregoing Lease" and is set out on a separate page that was not signed by the tenant. "In the absence of a specific agreement to arbitrate, the guarantors of a principal agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot be compelled to arbitrate. . . . A mere guarantee of performance does not constitute an assumption by the guarantor of the principal's agreement to submit to arbitration" (Matter of Calvin Klein Co. [Minnetonka, Inc.], 88 A.D.2d 503). As the IAS court stated, any intention on the part of these sophisticated entities that the guarantor be party to arbitration between the landlord and tenant should have been less equivocal and more express. We have considered and rejected the landlord's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Allegro Resorts Corp. v. Trans-Americainvest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 2003
1 A.D.3d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

In Allegro, the First Department affirmed an order staying arbitration because the party against whom arbitration was sought had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause (id. at 270).

Summary of this case from In re Seigfreid Bingham, P.C.

In Allegro, the First Department affirmed an order staying arbitration because the party against whom arbitration was sought had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause (id. at 270, 767 N.Y.S.2d 580).

Summary of this case from In re Arbitration Between Seigfreid Bingham, P.C.
Case details for

Allegro Resorts Corp. v. Trans-Americainvest

Case Details

Full title:ALLEGRO RESORTS CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent, v. TRANS-AMERICAINVEST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 20, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 580

Citing Cases

Providence Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Steel

In addition, a review of the Agreement indicates it is an employment agreement between Steel and WHM only,…

In re Seigfreid Bingham, P.C.

We reject petitioner's arguments to the contrary, all of which are preserved for appellate review. First,…