Baird, Patrick & Co. v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baird, Patrick & Co. v. Epstein

244 A.D.2d 155, 665 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11101

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 155 (Baird, Patrick & Co. v. Epstein) 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

Baird, Patrick & Co. v. Epstein, 244 A.D.2d 155, 665 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The general rule, that a voluntary discontinuance of an action or proceeding does not toll or extend the Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Finkelstein [Harris], 17 AD2d 137, lv denied 12 NY2d 646) is inapplicable here, where the parties stipulated to discontinue this timely-commenced arbitration proceeding without prejudice to its reinstitution upon the occurrence of a specified future event. Thus, the agreement of the parties should be given its intended effect (see, George v Mt. Si[156]*156nai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 180-181). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The general rule, that a voluntary discontinuance of an action or proceeding does not toll or extend the Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Finkelstein [Harris], 17 AD2d 137, lv denied 12 NY2d 646) is inapplicable here, where the parties stipulated to discontinue this timely-commenced arbitration proceeding without prejudice to its reinstitution upon the occurrence of a specified future event. Thus, the agreement of the parties should be given its intended effect (see, George v Mt. Si[156]*156nai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 180-181). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 155, 665 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-patrick-co-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack