Opinion
May 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The respondent's demand for arbitration indicates that the dispute arises out of an underwriting management agreement in effect between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, the parties clearly intended to submit the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the broad arbitration clause of their agreement (see, ATT Technologies v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 648-649). Because the transactions between the parties involve interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act applies ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; see, Matter of Cone Mills Corp. [Nielsen Co.], 90 A.D.2d 31). Under the act, the existence of a pending Federal action involving legal and factual issues related to those in the instant dispute does not warrant a stay of arbitration because the policy in favor of the rigorous enforcement of agreements to arbitrate is paramount to the consideration of the potential harm of piecemeal litigation (see, Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221; GAF Corp. v. Werner, 66 N.Y.2d 97, 102, cert denied 475 U.S. 1083). Weinstein, J.P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.