Opinion
11-05-2015
In re Lindsay Warren BAKER, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Lori BAJOREK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Peter M. Levine, New York, for appellants. The Glennon Law Firm P.C., Rochester (Peter J. Glennon of counsel), for respondents.
Peter M. Levine, New York, for appellants.
The Glennon Law Firm P.C., Rochester (Peter J. Glennon of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 1, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioners' petition to stay an arbitration proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
“[A]bsent a clear manifestation of contrary intent,” a broad arbitration clause, like the one at issue here, survives and remains enforceable after the termination of the agreement (Remco Maintenance, LLC v. CC Mgt. & Consulting, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 477, 479, 925 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2011] ; see also Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v. Wal–Mart Stores, 89 N.Y.2d 594, 598–599, 657 N.Y.S.2d 385, 679 N.E.2d 624 [1997] ). The option agreement between petitioners and the corporate defendant does not evince a contrary intent. Whether respondents' underlying claims are arbitrable is an issue for the arbitrator to resolve (see Remco, 85 A.D.3d at 479–480, 925 N.Y.S.2d 30 ; see also Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 N.Y.2d 91, 95, 371 N.Y.S.2d 463, 332 N.E.2d 333 [1975] ).
SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.