Opinion
No. 138 SSM 12.
Decided May 4, 2010.
APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 13, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.; op 2008 NY Slip Op 32626[U]), which had denied a motion by plaintiff to stay or enjoin arbitrations pending before the American Arbitration Association. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"
Following a dispute between the parties, defendant Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyds' sought arbitration. The arbitration agreement at issue required that "[a]ll disputes and differences arising under or in connection with [the parties' contract] . . . be referred to arbitration under the American Arbitration Association Rules." Those rules authorized the arbitration tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Life Receivables Trust v Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's, 66 AD3d 495, affirmed.
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Albany ( Israel Rubin of counsel), for appellant.
Barger Wolen LLP, New York City ( Evan L. Smoak of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should not be answered as unnecessary.
The Appellate Division properly concluded that the scope and validity of the parties' arbitration agreement, including issues of arbitrability, are for the arbitration tribunal to determine ( see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 45-47; Contec Corp. v Remote Solution, Co., Ltd., 398 F3d 205, 211 [2d Cir 2005]). Although Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v Mattel, Inc. ( 552 US 576) prohibits parties from expanding, by their own agreement, the scope of judicial review beyond that authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act, clear and unmistakable evidence exists in this case that the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, including whether the parties' arbitration agreement is invalid under Hall Street Associates or whether the apparently offending provision could be severed from the remainder of the agreement.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.