In re the Arbitration between Praetorian Realty Corp. & Presidential Towers Residence, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Markowits v. Friedman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Ferrarella v. Godt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Isaacs v. Prospect Park, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Spatz v. Ridge Lea Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Eric Riebling Co. v. Martin Woodworking Machines Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Brown v. Bussey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Dazco Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v. C.B.C. Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Blatt v. Sochet (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re Herrero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Columbia-Oxford Beverages, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Information Sciences, Inc. v. Mohawk Data Science Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division, with the following added comments: Appellant Praetorian Realty seeks to avoid arbitration on the ground that the agreement provides that only certain of its clauses are to survive the delivery of title and, further, that the claims asserted by respondent Presidential Towers fall within those clauses which did not survive the delivery of title. This argument raises an issue addressed to the merits of those claims, and is therefore within the province of the arbitrator. The arbitration clause is concededly broad, encompassing "Any and all disputes of whatsoever kind and nature arising out of * * * this agreement”, and the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration clause would survive the delivery of title. Once the courts have performed the "initial screening process”, determining that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the subject matter in dispute, their role has ended and they may not proceed to decide whether particular claims are tenable (see Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer, 37 NY2d 91, 96). Thus, appellant’s contention, that respondent’s claims are barred by the merger doctrine in real property law and by certain provisions of the agreement, is properly for the consideration of the arbitrator and not the courts.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.