Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc.

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 00078 [69 AD3d 439] January 7, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P., et al., Appellants,
v
Greenstar North America Holdings, Inc., Respondent.

—[*1] Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, New York (David R. Baum of counsel), for appellants.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, New York (Jay G. Safer of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 16, 2009, which, in an action relating to the purchase and sale of capital stock, granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"In deciding an application to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a), the court is required to first make a determination whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement and, if so, whether the issue sought to be submitted to arbitration falls within the scope of that agreement" (Koob v IDS Fin. Servs., 213 AD2d 26, 30 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, the motion court properly found that the unambiguous language of section 2.6 (d) of the purchase agreement constituted a broad arbitration clause and required arbitration if defendant "believe[d]" it was entitled to monies under the China damages claim because the supply agreement materially differed from the letter of intent or that the supply agreement was not entered into in a timely manner. The claims brought by defendant fit within the scope of the damages contemplated by section 2.6 (d) and thus, are enforceable. Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the existence of a general jurisdiction provision in the purchase agreement does not warrant a different determination (see Isaacs v Westchester Wood Works, 278 AD2d 184 [2000]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and RomÁn, JJ.