ANDREW SUCKLING, ETC., plf-ap, v. CHRISTINE IU def-res

4399N. ANDREW SUCKLING, ETC., plf-ap, v. CHRISTINE IU def-res — CHRISTINE IU, Third-Party plf-res, v. 35 SPRING STREET, LLC Third-Party def-ap — Blank Rome, LLP, New York (Leslie D. Corwin of counsel), for ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 18, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' cross motion to compel arbitration of the eighth through tenth, thirteenth through fifteenth, and eighteenth causes of action in the amended complaint pursuant to the operating agreements governing defendants 52 Reeve LLC and 56 Edison LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4399N. ANDREW SUCKLING, ETC., plf-ap, v. CHRISTINE IU def-res — CHRISTINE IU, Third-Party plf-res, v. 35 SPRING STREET, LLC Third-Party def-ap — Blank Rome, LLP, New York (Leslie D. Corwin of counsel), for ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 18, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion to compel arbitration of the eighth through tenth, thirteenth through fifteenth, and eighteenth causes of action in the amended complaint pursuant to the operating agreements governing defendants 52 Reeve LLC and 56 Edison LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The dispute resolution clause (section 14.11) of the operating agreements for defendants 56 Edison LLC and 52 Reeve LLC provides that “the Members shall submit [certain] dispute[s] to an arbitration procedure” (subd [b]; emphasis added). This unambiguous language evinces the parties’ “unequivocal intent to arbitrate the relevant dispute” (see Edelman v. Poster, 72 AD3d 182, 184 [1st Dept 2010]). The arbitration clause is no mere agreement to agree; it is “clear, explicit and unequivocal,” and does not depend upon “implication or subtlety” (see Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183-184 [1984]). Nor does the lack of a designated arbitration procedure render the clause unenforceable, because CPLR 7504 provides an objective method for supplying that missing term (see Edelman, 72 AD3d at 185-186; see also Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v. 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 93 [1991]).

ANDREW SUCKLING, ETC., plf-ap, v. CHRISTINE IU def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal