
    In the Matter of Sciame Construction LLC, Appellant, v Re: Source New Jersey, Inc., Respondent.
    [67 NYS3d 462]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered June 16, 2017, which denied petitioner’s petition to permanently stay arbitration, and dismissed this CPLR article 75 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The typewritten terms of the parties’ subcontract unambiguously and affirmatively establish an express agreement to arbitrate all disputes (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183-184 [1984]). To the extent any printed riders or exhibits were incorporated into the subcontract by reference, the subcontract’s typewritten portions regarding binding dispute resolution “represent an express manifestation of the parties’ actual intentions and take precedence over any inconsistent provisions in the printed form[s]” (Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 94 AD2d 229, 234 [1st Dept 1983], affd 61 NY2d 976 [1984]). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, an inconsistency provision in one of the purported exhibits is, by its plain terms, inapplicable to the parties’ subcontract; to construe it otherwise would impermissibly rewrite the provision under the guise of contract construction (Macy’s Inc. v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., 127 AD3d 48, 54 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.R, Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.  