Bevona v. Valencia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bevona v. Valencia

191 A.D.2d 192, 594 N.Y.S.2d 223

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 192 (Bevona v. Valencia) 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

Bevona v. Valencia, 191 A.D.2d 192, 594 N.Y.S.2d 223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered January 24, 1992, which denied respondent’s motion for a stay of enforcement of judgment and a reopening of arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent claims that he is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, the validity of which is not questioned. While a party may seek a judicial determination as to whether that party has agreed to arbitration (see, Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998), the time to do so is before arbitration commences, and not on an application to confirm the third of three consecutive awards (see, Matter of Harris [East India Trading Co.], 16 Misc 2d 87, 89). Absent a timely motion to stay arbitration, the claim that an issue is not arbitrable is waived (see, Bayroff Corp. v Showplace Bowling Ctr., 187 AD2d 269).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered January 24, 1992, which denied respondent’s motion for a stay of enforcement of judgment and a reopening of arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent claims that he is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, the validity of which is not questioned. While a party may seek a judicial determination as to whether that party has agreed to arbitration (see, Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998), the time to do so is before arbitration commences, and not on an application to confirm the third of three consecutive awards (see, Matter of Harris [East India Trading Co.], 16 Misc 2d 87, 89). Absent a timely motion to stay arbitration, the claim that an issue is not arbitrable is waived (see, Bayroff Corp. v Showplace Bowling Ctr., 187 AD2d 269).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 192, 594 N.Y.S.2d 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevona-v-valencia-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack