Commercial Arbitration Is Alive and Well in New York
Commercial arbitration is flourishing in New York because parties voluntarily agree that arbitration is the preferred method for addressing and resolving disputes that may arise from their contractual relationships. For a wide range of reasons, the freedom of contracting parties to make that choice is a good thing.
December 23, 2020 at 12:30 PM
9 minute read
One hundred years after adoption of what is now Article 75 of the New York CPLR and, soon thereafter, passage of the Federal Arbitration Act, the benefits of arbitrating commercial disputes are generally known and widely accepted in the business community.
Arbitration disputes on average are concluded far more quickly and efficiently than court litigation. A study reported by the American Arbitration Association compared the average duration of arbitrations conducted under AAA auspices with U.S. federal court litigations throughout the United States and concluded: (1) on average, U.S. district court cases took more than 12 months longer to get to trial than arbitration cases took to get to an evidentiary hearing (24.2 months versus 11.6 months); (2) when an appeal was included, U.S. district/circuit court cases on average took more than 21 months longer than arbitration to conclude (33.6 months versus 11.6 months), almost three times longer. Roy Weinstein, Cullen Edes and Nels Pearsall, Efficiency and Economic Benefits of Dispute Resolution through Arbitration Compared with U.S. District Court Proceedings, Micronomics Economic Research and Consulting (March 2017); American Arbitration Association, Measuring the Costs of Delays in Dispute Resolution (Sept. 27, 2017). In a study limited to New York federal courts, the median time from filing a complaint to the beginning of trial was 30.9 months, in contrast to 12.5 months from filing an arbitration demand to issuance of a final award, a difference of 18.4 months. Cases in New York state courts undoubtedly take longer, with an even greater disparity between the length of time for a case to be concluded in New York state trial court versus arbitration. Roy Weinstein, Arbitration Offers Efficiency and Economic Benefits Compared to Court Proceedings, New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer (Fall 2017). In part this difference may be the result of over-crowded court calendars, exacerbated by the current COVID-19 environment.
The shorter time to conclusion has a corollary benefit: reduced cost. Notably, other aspects of commercial arbitration also tend to make an arbitration more efficient than a similar court proceeding. Discovery may be limited; motion practice may be more closely managed; and the case may be organized more tightly than a litigation in some court systems.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250