Introduction: Same Hypothetical but New York Article 75 Changes the Timing Analysis
New York’s arbitration statute is New York Civ. Prac. L. & R. (“CPLR”) Article 75. It is essentially New York’s version of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA was modeled on the statutory predecessor of Article 75. That said, Article 75 and the FAA differ in some material respects.
Our recent Arbitration Law Forum article (the “FAA No Agreement Article”) addressed whether, under the FAA, a business that never agreed to arbitrate may oppose confirmation of an adverse default award even though it did not serve within FAA Section 12’s three-month limitation period a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award.
How would Article 75 resolve the question posed in the FAA No Agreement Article? As we’ll see, the ultimate outcome under both statutes is similar but there are some materially different timing and procedural rules in play. This post discusses how and why that is so.
The Article 75 Hypothetical
Suppose the applicable arbitration law is not the FAA, but New York’s Continue Reading »
