*1 clause) same, her place the uninsured is to but motorist better, in any position. Saypol would, as Any Justice re- contrary determination cently "lead to result succinctly stated: anomalous paying the insured his own no-fault would be benefits pain suffering, his compensation specifi- items Spitaleri cally payments.” excluded from no-fault Acc. & Ind. 4.) 16, [Hartford NYLJ, 1975, 5, Co.] Dec. col p to the the Insurance Finally, Department regu- extent lation 65.6 respondent [q]) cited NYCRR mandates result, different it provi- we conclude conflicts "with the sions of design the statute inconsistent with its is] [and (Connolly purpose” should, given be no weight. O’Malley, 411, light Court, foregoing, judgment Supreme (Gellinoff, J.), 1975, County York entered October should affirmed, with costs. Stevens, J., Markewich, Capozzoli, Silverman P. JJ., concur.

Judgment, New York County, 15, 1975, October unanimously Petitioner-respondent affirmed. of respondent-appellant recover costs and disburse- $60 appeal. ments of this A. Schachter

In the Matter Alan of the Arbitration between Company, & al., Respondents, Lester Witte et Appel- lant. Department, May

First *2 (Arnold Chase, Edward Arnold Buffum Lovell of counsel H. Kabak Altabef with him Matthew Richard Botein, Herzberg, attorneys), Sklar & brief; appel for Hays, lant. P. H. Rachlis with (Stephen Leichter of

Franz S. counsel Grouf, Wachtell, Manheim & for brief; attorneys), him on the respondents, Alan A. Schachter Petitioners-respondents Nunez, Horan”) ("Schachter partners M. Horan were

Daniel accounting Company, Witte & respondent-appellant Lester firm”). their ("Witte”, Following "the termination firm clause, Witte agreement containing an arbitration partnership against Schachter proceeding an arbitration instituted partner- seeking recovery alleged violations Horan for for petitioned Schachter and Horan ship agreement. agreement pending a trial as to whether duress, fraud, lack for containing the arbitration clause void and, in viola- or in restraint of trade mutuality the arbitration Special policy. tion of Term held public in- provision kind of "broad” arbitration clause is 190) (32 and that (Carp) in Matter of Weinrott NY2d volved inception relating therefore issues its be determined the court. are to We dis- validity agree. reads: The clause

"21. Arbitration

"If agreement, under this any disagreement arises the con- troversy shall be settled arbitration”. (supra, p 196) in Weinrott

The recites: "All disputes, hereunder, interpretation arising controversies or claims provisions performance or the called thereun- der shall be settled by arbitration”. "disputes”, words and "claims” are synon- "controversies” (See

ymous "disagreement”. with the word Third Webster’s Dictionary.) employed, International the context "hereunder” synonymous agreement”. with "under Matter of Nationwide Gen Ins Co. Ins. Co. v Investors *3 NY2d 95 [June, 1975]) Appeals the Court of stated: "More typically the parties adopt agree- a 'broad’ arbitration clause ing generally disputes arising to submit to all arbitration of the contract, relating meaning or the any dispute to interpretation noted, agreement.” As here underlying the agreed disagreement to arises "[i]f under the agreement”—language almost identical with phrase "all disputes arising quoted out of the contract” (supra). Nationwide conclude, therefore, We the within of Weinrott and Nation- clause is "broad” within holdings the wide (supra) and, consequently, the issue of fraud the inducement is to be determined arbitrator. The court only required to resolve claim that the arbitration (as itself differentiated from the validity underlying agreement) was fraudulently induced. Weinstein-Korn- 75-26.) Miller, Prac, 7501.25,1975 par NY Civ Supp, p Likewise, question agreement whether is void (Matter arbitrator, lack of mutuality for the the court. of De [Cinematografica] Laurentiis Matter 503, 509; 9 NY2d of [Carp], supra; Weinrott Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta] 9 329; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, Prac, NY2d 8 par NY Civ 75-23.3—75-23.4.) 7501.23, pp As to the claim of duress in the contract, inducement of a we have that we recently most held little, perceive any, if difference fraud and between duress that duress should be treated as fraud same a claim of Prods, (Candid v SFM Media is to be decided the arbitrator. Serv. Corp., 943). influence, "Fraud, undue duress would seem all to species” (Encyclope- be of the same also, Law, See, dia, 1901. Restatement Contracts NY § 499). fraud, Contracts, duress Accordingly, issues § clause, are, of the broad arbitration mutuality lack of view for the arbitrator. partnership agreement’s

Remaining is the claim restraint And illegal trade. while provisions constitute antitrust cannot left policy the enforcement of our State’s be (Matter Corp., Aimcee Wholesale to commercial arbitration 621), upon party a to demonstrate a NY2d it is incumbent prima facie the restrictions are showing unreasonable face, agreement, when the on its under all the circumstances matter of law be violative of the public cannot be held as a to 340) (General Law, of this State. policy Business § Supply Co.], [Modern Riccardi Silver Linen 45 AD2d affd examine, offending the allegedly 36 NY2d We and Horan were members of a national provisions. Schachter Schachter, becoming a partner brought firm. accounting firm; Accordingly, Horan did not. each several accounts to to compensated differently. Schachter was receive was rendered, reflecting "equity points,” both "income the value of the clientele he contributed to points,” reflecting points.” Upon only the firm. Horan was receive "income firm, partner from the is entitled to withdrawal removal his payments annual settlement former receive five reflect, if payments appropri- in the firm. those interest ate, points”. "equity further in the case of a withdraw- provides,

ing point” partner, professional that if he renders "equity clients, payments due any to of the firm’s the annual services if final according to the him shall be reduced a formula. due, withdrawing part- the the computation payments exceeds the pay ner the difference to firm. or is points” only withdraws partner

When an "income removed, partner agrees professional the former not to render of that the firm for Violation years. to a client of two services an to be reduced covenant causes due payments clients charged the fees to such equal amount to 200% the removed If amount exceeds preceding year. the that him, paid to be due the is payments difference partner’s to the firm. immediately stated, prohibited is points” partner an "income

Briefly As to dealing with the firm two years. from clients for prohibition partner, the duration points” "equity against dealing with the firm clients is not enumerated we but find from reading a of articles 18 and of Appendix B to the Agreement, National there is a five-year that limitation. The restraints general, appear reasonably are not limited in time appear related to reasonably legitimate Witte’s interests. prohibited Nor are Schachter and Horan from practicing their profession any way except they that may not render (See Riccardi, supra; Bates Chevro- to Witte’s clients. Chevrolet, Corp. let v Haven Systems Service 27; 13 AD2d Harris, Corp. v 20.) 41 AD2d petitions merely affidavits assert conclusorily provisions are in restraint of trade

thus Schachter and Horan have failed to set forth substantial support factual allegations for their antitrust raise properly of Riccardi Silver Linen Supply [Modern the issue. Co.], supra; Matter of Pasch 191, 945, 45 AD2d affd 36 NY2d Corp.] 26 Misc 2d [Chemoleum 918, affd The announced policy this State favors encourages arbitration a conserving as means of the time and resources the courts and the contracting parties. Generally, it is for the courts to decide "whether agreed have to arbitrate (Steelworkers Co., Mfg. American particular dispute.” 570-571.) 363 US We confine ourselves to the arbitration leave over-all contract arbitrators. Indeed, the courts prohibited are considering from "whether claim respect with to which sought arbitration is tenable, pass[ing] otherwise the merits of the dis- (CPLR 7501.) pute.”

The judgment New York (Asch, J.) County September granting should be application reversed on the law and the to stay arbitration denied with costs and disbursements.

Kupferman, (dissenting). While I would affirm on the (Asch, J.) Special decision of Term proper as a matter discretion, exercise I think it pointed should court, It reversing, position. takes a most contradictory first decides the matter and not one for the arbitrator for the court. It coming then inserts controversy itself into the *5 conclusions, seeming counts, albeit on both erroneously about the merits.

Stevens, Lupiano, P. Markewich and concur with J., JJ., Nunez, J.; Kupferman, in an opinion. dissents J., York

Judgment, County, New law, 1975, reversed, vacated, on the and September application denied. Appellant costs and respondents recover disbursements of this $40 appeal. Shipyards Corporation, Petitioner, Matter of Todd Commission, Respondent.

State Tax Department, May

Third (Robert Goetz, Jr., B. Lisle Ernest A. Cullen & Dykman counsel), petitioner. (John Forner, Lefkowitz, Jr. J. F. Attorney-General Louis counsel), for respondent. Ruth Toch Kessler corporation petitioner is a York Mahoney, construction, repair conversion and engaged the business of com foreign engaged interstate of commercial vessels During the tax merce both within without the State. question petitioner purchased materials period tools, station equipment, supplies, including safety electrical petitioner’s supplies, of which used and similar all were ary third working vessels owned employees