Opinion
13162 Index No. 655455/2019 Case No. 2020-02873
02-18-2021
ANIMA GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. EMERALD EXPOSITIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, New York ( Daniel J. DiMuro of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper, Cedarhurst ( Jonathan M. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, New York ( Daniel J. DiMuro of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper, Cedarhurst ( Jonathan M. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Kern, Singh, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered June 3, 2020, which denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.
Paragraph 18 of the parties’ exhibit space agreement, titled "Disputes," provides broadly that "[a]ny and all disputes or claims ... will be resolved in binding arbitration, rather than in court." The agreement also expressly incorporates the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), of which Rule 7(a) states, "The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim." These provisions demonstrate the parties’ clear and unmistakable intent to delegate the threshold arbitrability question to the AAA ( see e.g. Matter of WN Partner, LLC v. Baltimore Orioles L.P., 179 A.D.3d 14, 112 N.Y.S.3d 68 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro LLC, 139 A.D.3d 646, 33 N.Y.S.3d 201 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Gramercy Advisors LLC v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp., 134 A.D.3d 652, 23 N.Y.S.3d 38 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's, 66 A.D.3d 495, 496, 888 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1st Dept. 2009], affd 14 N.Y.3d 850, 901 N.Y.S.2d 133, 927 N.E.2d 553 [2010] ; compare Matter of Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. [Elan Pharms., Inc.], 10 A.D.3d 331, 781 N.Y.S.2d 95 [1st Dept. 2004] [reversing stay of arbitration and remanding for hearing as to parties’ intent to arbitrate subjects identified in arbitration demand where arbitration provision excluded disputes involving intellectual property rights from arbitration and from AAA rules, and factual issues existed whether identified subjects involved intellectual property rights]).