Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's 14 N.Y.3d 850

← Cases

Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's

14 N.Y.3d 850 Court N.Y. Decision date 2010-05-04 English

Contents

Majority

p. 850
[927 NE2d 553, 901 NYS2d 133]
Life Receivables Trust, Plaintiff, v Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s, Respondent, and Life Settlement Corporation, Doing Business as Peach Tree Life Settlements, Appellant.
Decided May 4, 2010
p. 851
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Albany (Israel Rubin of counsel), for appellant.
Barger & Wolen LLP, New York City (Evan L. Smoak of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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 [1997]; 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 [2008]) 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

p. 852
parties’ arbitration agreement is invalid under Hall Street Associates or whether the apparently offending provision could be severed from the remainder of the agreement.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited