Opinion
July 20, 2000.
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.
Steve Kieselstein, for petitioner-appellant.
Joseph E. Madsen, for respondent-respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
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). 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 (Goddess), 61 N.Y.2d 181, 183-184). 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.
Motion seeking to enlarge record denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.