New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department
January 10, 2012
SCOTT C. GIBSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
SEABURY TRANSPORTATION ADVISOR LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Gibson v Seabury Transp. Advisor LLC
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on January 10, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered November 26, 2010, which granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to the issue of arbitrability, and denied plaintiff's cross motion to sever and stay his claims against defendant Seabury Aviation & Aerospace LLC pending disposition of his claims against defendant Seabury Transportation Advisor LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The arbitration clause in the parties' agreement "evince[s] a clear and unmistakable' agreement to arbitrate arbitrability" (see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 46 ; Life Receivables Trust v Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's, 66 AD3d 495, 496 , affd 14 NY3d 850 , cert denied __US__, 131 S Ct 463 ). It provides that any "dispute, difference, controversy or claim arising in connection with or related or incidental to, or questions occurring under, the provisions of this Agreement ... [not resolved by mediation] ... shall be submitted to JAMS/Endispute for binding arbitration before a sole arbitrator." The clause provides further that the arbitration shall be conducted under JAMS/Endispute's commercial rules. Rule 11(c) of JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedure provides that "[j]urisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the . . . interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought . . . shall be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter."
Since it has yet to be determined whether plaintiff's claims against Seabury Transportation are arbitrable, it would be premature to sever and stay the claims against Seabury Aviation.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.