Opinion
October 6, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The record supports the IAS Court's finding that petitioner signed the larger of the two purchase orders on its own behalf and not as an agent of an accommodating third party. Since the two purchase orders, both of which contained an arbitration clause, were issued simultaneously and involved identical goods, it is clear that they were part and parcel of a single transaction. Given these circumstances, petitioner's signature on the larger purchase order, together with its acceptance without objection of confirmations for both purchase orders, both of which contained an arbitration clause, evinced its agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under the smaller purchase order as well as the larger (cf., Michel Co. v Anabasis Trade, 50 N.Y.2d 951; see also, Matter of Boutique Indus. [Fair-Tex Mills], 90 A.D.2d 737).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.