5531N Index 651491/17
Pepper Hamilton LLP, New York (Ira M. Schulman of counsel), for appellant. Poff & Weber LLC, Nanuet (Michael A. Cretella of counsel), for respondent.
Pepper Hamilton LLP, New York (Ira M. Schulman of counsel), for appellant.
Poff & Weber LLC, Nanuet (Michael A. Cretella of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered June 16, 2017, which denied petitioner's petition to permanently stay arbitration, and dismissed this CPLR article 75 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The typewritten terms of the parties' subcontract unambiguously and affirmatively establish an express agreement to arbitrate all disputes ( Matter of Waldron [Goddess ], 61 N.Y.2d 181, 183–184, 473 N.Y.S.2d 136, 461 N.E.2d 273  ). To the extent any printed riders or exhibits were incorporated into the subcontract by reference, the subcontract's typewritten portions regarding binding dispute resolution "represent an express manifestation of the parties' actual intentions and take precedence over any inconsistent provisions in the printed form[s]" (Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. , 94 A.D.2d 229, 234, 463 N.Y.S.2d 814 [1st Dept. 1983], affd 61 N.Y.2d 976, 475 N.Y.S.2d 278, 463 N.E.2d 619  ). Contrary to petitioner's argument, an inconsistency provision in one of the purported exhibits is, by its plain terms, inapplicable to the parties' subcontract; to construe it otherwise would impermissibly rewrite the provision under the guise of contract construction ( Macy's Inc. v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. , 127 A.D.3d 48, 54, 6 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2015] ).