[brief] Defendants Expressly Waived Arbitration in the Court Below and Have No Legal or Factual Basis For Rescission of That Waiver**  [...]’s October 11, 2023 Opinion and October 17, 2023 Order, correctly found that in a prior proceeding in the same matter before [...], the Defendants had *expressly* waived any right of arbitration they claimed they had.  The Trial Court read into the record [...]’s question about whether the Defendants were waiving their demand for arbitration and the defense counsel answered “Yes. ” (3T40:20 to 41:5).  The transcript to which [...] specifically referred is as follows:  [...]:  …I want to confirm on the record—there had been a previous request that there is going to be a motion filed for, the matter to go to arbitration.  I believe it’s been established that that’s been waived and arbitration is no longer an issue.  Correct?  [...] [for all Defendants]: Correct your Honor.  [...] [for the Plaintiff [...]]: Correct your Honor.  [3/23/23 Court Hearing, 2T6:12-19, emphasis added]  Thus, on the record, Defendants had, before [...], completely and expressly abandoned any claim to arbitration and [...]’s decision was therefore based on a correct and rational basis and was grounded in probative and competent evidence.  In their reconsideration motion below as well as on appeal now, Defendants harp on the Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 215 N.J. 265 (2023) standards for an implied waiver.  But the Trial Court’s Order as it relates to the waiver issue was properly premised on an express waiver, so it was not necessary for Plaintiff to show waiver by pointing to the kind of circumstantial evidence set forth in Cole, supra.  Nonetheless, as discussed within, Plaintiff more than meets the Cole factors, even though he did not have to.  It is beyond contest that our courts recognize the binding nature of an express waiver of arbitration:  An effective waiver requires a party to have full knowledge of his legal rights and intent to surrender those rights…Parties can expressly waive their rights to arbitration.  [Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. Super. 508, 514 (App. Div., 2002) (emphasis supplied). ]  [see also, Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 376 (2008)].  Clearly, Defendants’ confirmation of the aforesaid express waiver before [...], after their failure to comply with the Chancery Court’s Order for filing a motion to compel arbitration, fully justified the Trial Court’s decision to deny a rescission of the arbitration clause.  The mere fact that Defendants changed lawyers months after the express waiver was properly of no moment in the Trial Judge’s decision.  Not only was an express waiver made before [...] on March 23, 2023, but an express waiver was also made by the Defendants on March 17, 2023 when Defendants elected to file a Complaint against the Plaintiff in Chancery with a jury demand, their Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) Certification to their Complaint mentioned NO contemplated arbitration filing as they had abandoned it at that point – all acts completely at odds with any claim that the matter belonged in arbitration.  Da8, Da18-19.  [...]’s October 17, 2023 Order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and January 30, 2024 Order denying reconsideration were both correctly decided.  B.