Cusimano v. Berita Realty, LLC

• Decision Date: 13 February 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00913,103 A.D.3d 720,959 N.Y.S.2d 711
• Parties: In the Matter of Rita CUSIMANO, appellant, v. BERITA REALTY, LLC, respondent, Bernadette Strianese, respondent-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 720

959 N.Y.S.2d 711

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00913

In the Matter of Rita CUSIMANO, appellant,

v. BERITA REALTY, LLC, respondent,Bernadette Strianese, respondent-respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 13, 2013.

Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert M. Calica and Judah Serfaty of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph & Terracciano, LLP, Syosset, N.Y. (Peter J. Terracciano and Janine T. Lynam of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 702 for the judicial dissolution of Berita Realty, LLC, and for an accounting, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 25, 2012, as, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court (Warshawsky, J.), entered March 8, 2011, granting the motion of Bernadette Strianese to stay the proceeding and compel arbitration.

ORDERED that the order entered April 25, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“[I]n the commercial context generally, the rule is clear that unless the agreement to arbitrate expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute, a party cannot be compelled to forego the right to seek judicial relief and instead submit to arbitration” ( Bowmer v. Bowmer, 50 N.Y.2d 288, 293–294, 428 N.Y.S.2d 902, 406 N.E.2d 760;see Sammarco v. Pepsi–Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 1 A.D.3d 341, 342, 767 N.Y.S.2d 59;Computer Assoc. Intl. v. Com–Tech Assoc., 239 A.D.2d 379, 380–381, 658 N.Y.S.2d 322). The burden of proof is on the party seeking arbitration ( see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Roseboro, 247 A.D.2d 379, 380, 667 N.Y.S.2d 914;Matter of American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Williams, 233 A.D.2d 320, 649 N.Y.S.2d 190). The right to arbitrate, like any other contractual right, may be modified, waived, or abandoned ( see Sherrill v. Grayco Bldrs., 64 N.Y.2d 261, 272, 486 N.Y.S.2d 159, 475 N.E.2d 772). A determination that a party has waived the right to arbitrate requires a finding that the party engaged in litigation to such an extent as to “manifest[ ] a preference ‘clearly inconsistent with [its] later claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration’ ... and thereby elected to litigate rather than arbitrate” ( id. at 272, 486 N.Y.S.2d 159, 475 N.E.2d 772, quoting Matter of Zimmerman v. Cohen, 236 N.Y. 15, 19, 139 N.E. 764).

Here, the Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to the prior determination granting the motion of the respondent Bernadette Strianese to stay the proceeding and compel arbitration. Strianese satisfied her burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate that expressly and unequivocally...