237 Park Investors, LLC v. J. Walter Thompson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

237 Park Investors, LLC v. J. Walter Thompson Co.

5 A.D.3d 304, 773 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 304 (237 Park Investors, LLC v. J. Walter Thompson Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

237 Park Investors, LLC v. J. Walter Thompson Co., 5 A.D.3d 304, 773 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[305]*305Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the petition to stay arbitration and dismissed this proceeding with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of procedural arbitrability were for the arbitrator to determine (see Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 US 79 [2002]). The arbitration also met the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 7502 [b]), which was a threshold issue to be determined by the court (see Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202 [1995]).

Furthermore, article 4.01 (a) of the lease made arbitrable any dispute as to the building assessment, with the arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy with respect to real estate tax overcharges.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[305]*305Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the petition to stay arbitration and dismissed this proceeding with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of procedural arbitrability were for the arbitrator to determine (see Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 US 79 [2002]). The arbitration also met the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 7502 [b]), which was a threshold issue to be determined by the court (see Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202 [1995]).

Furthermore, article 4.01 (a) of the lease made arbitrable any dispute as to the building assessment, with the arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy with respect to real estate tax overcharges.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 304, 773 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/237-park-investors-llc-v-j-walter-thompson-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack