| Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc. v Oxford Health Plans (NY),Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00347 [58 AD3d 686] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Inc., et al.,Appellants, v Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc., et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Rivkin Radler, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Peter P. McNamara and Merril S. Biscone ofcounsel), for respondents. Susan C. Waltman, New York, N.Y., for Greater New York Hospital Association, amicuscuriae. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Albany, N.Y. (Mark Thomas ofcounsel), for Healthcare Association of New York State, amicus curiae. Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Eugene R. Anderson and Amy Bach ofcounsel; Michael Gately on the brief), for United Policyholders, amicus curiae.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from(1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 24,2007, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to compel arbitration, and (2)so much of an order of the same court dated May 24, 2007, as denied that branch of their motionwhich was to voluntarily discontinue the action, without prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to therespondents.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs' claims, as alleged in the amended[*2]complaint, all arise from or relate to their contracts with thedefendants and, therefore, are within the scope of the broad arbitration provisions containedwithin those contracts (see M.H. KaneConstr. Corp. v URS Corp. Group Consultants, 42 AD3d 512, 513 [2007]; Vitals986, Inc. v Healthwave, Inc., 15AD3d 571 [2005]). Although the plaintiffs allege fraud, it is not the type that permeates theagreements in their entirety so as to invalidate the arbitration clauses as well (see Matter ofWeinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190 [1973]; Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v Winchester Global Trust Co. Ltd., 21AD3d 887, 889 [2005]; Cologne Reins. Co. of Am. v Southern Underwriters, 218AD2d 680, 681 [1995]). Moreover, this dispute is arbitrable as its subject matter does not violatea statute, decisional law, or public policy (compare Matter of City of Long Beach v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.,Inc.—Long Beach Unit, 8 NY3d 465, 470 [2007]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion tovoluntarily discontinue the action without prejudice (see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378,383 [1982]). The record supports a finding that the plaintiffs were merely attempting tocircumvent the prior order compelling arbitration (see Kaplan v Village of Ossining, 35 AD3d 816, 817 [2006]; Schachter v Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 21AD3d 1024 [2005]; Venture I, Inc.v Voutsinas, 8 AD3d 475 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.