American Plan Corp. v. Jarchin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Plan Corp. v. Jarchin

53 A.D.2d 622, 384 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319

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

DecidedJune 7, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 622 (American Plan Corp. v. Jarchin) 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

American Plan Corp. v. Jarchin, 53 A.D.2d 622, 384 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 5, 1974, which stayed arbitration pending a trial of the preliminary issue of whether the agency agreement had been terminated by petitioner and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 6, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial of that issue, permanently stayed arbitration. Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term properly determined that it was for the court, not the arbitrators, to determine whether the express condition precedent to arbitration, contained in the narrowly drafted arbitration clause, had been met (see Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.] 11 NY2d 310, 313-314; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Stroud-Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.], 36 NY2d 719, 720; Matter of Humble Oil & Refining Co. [Civitano] 32 AD2d 670). Upon this record, it is clear that Trial Term correctly concluded that this express condition precedent had not been satisfied. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 5, 1974, which stayed arbitration pending a trial of the preliminary issue of whether the agency agreement had been terminated by petitioner and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 6, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial of that issue, permanently stayed arbitration. Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term properly determined that it was for the court, not the arbitrators, to determine whether the express condition precedent to arbitration, contained in the narrowly drafted arbitration clause, had been met (see Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.] 11 NY2d 310, 313-314; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Stroud-Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.], 36 NY2d 719, 720; Matter of Humble Oil & Refining Co. [Civitano] 32 AD2d 670). Upon this record, it is clear that Trial Term correctly concluded that this express condition precedent had not been satisfied. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 622, 384 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-plan-corp-v-jarchin-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack