A New York appellate court has ruled that a contract dispute between Breslin Brookhaven, LLC and Allan V. Rose must go to arbitration. The decision affects how disputes in business agreements are resolved and reinforces the importance of arbitration clauses in contracts.

The case, Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose, was decided on September 2, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, under docket number 2025-07146. The ruling came after the defendants, Rose and AVR Enterprises, LLC, appealed a lower court's decision that denied their request to compel arbitration.

Background

Breslin Brookhaven, LLC is a business entity involved in real estate development. Allan V. Rose is one of the defendants in this case, and he had entered into an operating agreement with Breslin Brookhaven in 1999. The agreement was intended for the acquisition and development of several parcels of land in Suffolk County.

The dispute arose when Breslin Brookhaven accused Rose of breaching the contract. The plaintiff alleged that Rose had bypassed funding requirements by making loans to the LLC that prioritized the repayment of principal over interest. This arrangement led Breslin Brookhaven to forgo third-party funding, which they claim was against the terms of their agreement.

In May 2024, Breslin Brookhaven initiated legal action against Rose and AVR Enterprises, seeking damages for the alleged breach of contract. The defendants responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration, citing the arbitration clause in their operating agreement. They argued that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration rather than through court proceedings.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division reviewed the lower court's decision, which had denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration clause in the operating agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute at hand. The judges noted, "The operating agreement's arbitration provision, which requires the parties to submit all disputes 'arising out of or relating to matters set forth in this Agreement' to arbitration, is sufficiently broad to encompass the instant dispute."

As a result, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings in the action pending the completion of the arbitration. The ruling was made by Justices Angela G. Iannacci, Deborah A. Dowling, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Donna-Marie E. Golia, who concurred in the decision.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts, emphasizing that parties must adhere to the agreements they sign. It highlights that arbitration can be a preferred method for resolving disputes in business contracts, potentially saving time and resources compared to traditional court litigation.

The decision also clarifies that a non-signatory party, such as AVR Enterprises, can enforce an arbitration clause if the agreement allows for such enforcement. This aspect of the ruling could influence future contract negotiations and dispute resolutions, as businesses may consider the implications of arbitration clauses more carefully.

What's Next

The case will now proceed to arbitration as directed by the court. It remains to be seen if either party will appeal the ruling further or if there are related cases pending that could affect the outcome of this arbitration.