8722-8723. IN RE RICHARD P. NESPOLA, pet-res, v. THE MANAGEMENT NETWORK GROUP, INC., res-ap, AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, res — Husch Blackwell LLP, Kansas City, MO (Jeffrey D. Hanslick of the bars of the States of Missouri, Kansas, and Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for ap — Paul Hastings LLP, New York (Zachary D. Fasman of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered August 13, 2012, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 1, 2012, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, granted petitioner’s petition and motion to stay arbitration in Kansas, declared that New York is the appropriate location for arbitration, and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration in New York, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion for summary judgment granted, the petition and motion to stay arbitration denied, and this hybrid CPLR article 75/declaratory judgment proceeding dismissed.
Where, as here, the parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes and to be bound by respondent American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) rules, judicial review of interim determinations regarding locale is generally unavailable (Matter of D.M.C. Constr. Corp. v. Nash Steel Corp., 41 NY2d 855 [1977] [revg 51 AD2d 1040, 1040-1043 [2d Dept 1976] on dissenting opinion of Shapiro, J.; see also E.B. Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, 624 F2d 411, 414 [2d Cir 1980]). Indeed, judicial review in these cases is confined to a limited inquiry as to whether the venue determination complied with a minimum constitutional standard of fair dealing, or, in “extreme cases,” whether the venue determination was made in bad faith (D.M.C., 51 AD2d at 1043 [Shapiro, J., dissenting]; Aerojet-General Corp. v. Am. Arbitration Assn., 478 F2d 248, 251 [9th Cir 1973]).
