Baron v. Stewart Michael Design, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baron v. Stewart Michael Design, Inc.

202 A.D.2d 383, 608 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1916

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 383 (Baron v. Stewart Michael Design, Inc.) 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

Baron v. Stewart Michael Design, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 383, 608 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated April 30, 1992, which denied its motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration.

The parties entered into a contract which contained an arbitration clause. After the defendant gave notice of its intent to terminate the contract and seek arbitration, the plaintiffs commenced this action, seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and negligence. The record, which the parties stipulate is complete, is bare of pleadings or motion papers demonstrating that the plaintiffs sought rescission. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have directed the parties to proceed to arbitration (see, Matter of Bichler v 100 Lexington Ave. Corp., 4 AD2d 949). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated April 30, 1992, which denied its motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration.

The parties entered into a contract which contained an arbitration clause. After the defendant gave notice of its intent to terminate the contract and seek arbitration, the plaintiffs commenced this action, seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and negligence. The record, which the parties stipulate is complete, is bare of pleadings or motion papers demonstrating that the plaintiffs sought rescission. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have directed the parties to proceed to arbitration (see, Matter of Bichler v 100 Lexington Ave. Corp., 4 AD2d 949). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 383, 608 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-stewart-michael-design-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack