The parties' mutual promises to arbitrate constituted consideration sufficient to support the arbitration agreement ( see Blair v. Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F3d 595, 603-604 [3d Cir 2002], citing Michalski v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 177 F3d 634, 637 [7th Cir 1999], and Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, 148 F3d 373, 378 [4th Cir 1998]; see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Johnson, 354 Ill App 3d 885, 893-894, 822 NE2d 30, 37; J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 SW3d 223, 228 [Tex Sup Ct 2003]; Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton Scripps, 74 Cal App 4th 1105, 1126-1127, 88 Cal Rptr 2d 664, 680, review denied 2000 Cal LEXIS 262 [Cal Sup Ct 2000]). The subject agreement between these sophisticated parties, in which plaintiff acknowledged having had the opportunity to consult with advisors before signing, was not a contract of adhesion. We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.