Castaldo v. 7-Eleven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castaldo v. 7-Eleven

59 A.D.2d 521, 397 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300

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

DecidedAugust 1, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 521 (Castaldo v. 7-Eleven) 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

Castaldo v. 7-Eleven, 59 A.D.2d 521, 397 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to rescind an agreement on the ground of fraud in the inducement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 20, 1977, as denied its cross motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and cross motion granted insofar as it seeks to compel arbitration. The arbitration clause in question is sufficiently broad to permit submission to arbitration on the issue of whether the contract was fraudulently induced (see Matter of Amphenol Corp. [Microlab], 49 Misc 2d 46, 47; Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 281; cf. Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 196, 199). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to rescind an agreement on the ground of fraud in the inducement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 20, 1977, as denied its cross motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and cross motion granted insofar as it seeks to compel arbitration. The arbitration clause in question is sufficiently broad to permit submission to arbitration on the issue of whether the contract was fraudulently induced (see Matter of Amphenol Corp. [Microlab], 49 Misc 2d 46, 47; Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 AD2d 280, 281; cf. Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 196, 199). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 521, 397 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castaldo-v-7-eleven-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack