Bogard v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bogard v. Paul

228 A.D.2d 306, 643 N.Y.2d 999, 643 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130

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

DecidedJune 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 306 (Bogard v. Paul) 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

Bogard v. Paul, 228 A.D.2d 306, 643 N.Y.2d 999, 643 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Under the broad arbitration clause prepared by plaintiff as attorney for all parties herein, the causes of action were properly directed to arbitration by the motion court. There are no public policy considerations involved in this purely personal dispute which would impel a court not to honor the parties’ agreement providing for arbitration (see, Matter of Wertlieb. [Greystone Partnerships Group], 165 AD2d 644).

As to plaintiff’s cross motion, a sufficient question of fact is presented on the issue of continuous representation so as to preclude dismissal of the counterclaims on Statute of Limitations grounds (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Under the broad arbitration clause prepared by plaintiff as attorney for all parties herein, the causes of action were properly directed to arbitration by the motion court. There are no public policy considerations involved in this purely personal dispute which would impel a court not to honor the parties’ agreement providing for arbitration (see, Matter of Wertlieb. [Greystone Partnerships Group], 165 AD2d 644).

As to plaintiff’s cross motion, a sufficient question of fact is presented on the issue of continuous representation so as to preclude dismissal of the counterclaims on Statute of Limitations grounds (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 306, 643 N.Y.2d 999, 643 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogard-v-paul-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack