Chanry Communications, Ltd. v. Circulation Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chanry Communications, Ltd. v. Circulation Management, Inc.

156 A.D.2d 633, 549 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16436

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 633 (Chanry Communications, Ltd. v. Circulation Management, 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

Chanry Communications, Ltd. v. Circulation Management, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 633, 549 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to prevent the joinder of the petitioners as respondents in an American Arbitration Association proceeding entitled Circulation Mgt. c CBA Indus., the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated May 12, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners Chanry Communications, Ltd. (hereafter [634]*634Chanry) and Pennysaver Home Distribution Corporation (hereafter Pennysaver) contend, on appeal, that the Supreme Court erred in denying their petition to prevent this joinder in arbitration because it overlooked the fact that the agreement between the parties has not been complied with, thereby precluding arbitration. We disagree. Whether an arbitration agreement has been complied with is 1 of the 3 threshold questions, on a motion or in a proceeding to stay arbitration, to be resolved by the courts (Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 8-11; Avon Prods, v Solow, 150 AD2d 236; Matter of Hudson Watch Assocs. v H.F.S. Elec., 134 AD2d 352). The Court of Appeals has made a sharp distinction between conditions precedent to arbitration, for example, where the parties agreed that the dispute must first be submitted to a specified authority for determination, or where contractual limitations are expressly made conditions precedent to arbitration by the terms of the arbitration agreement, and conditions in arbitration, i.e., procedural regulations to be observed in the conduct of the arbitration process itself. The former fall within the judicial ambit, whereas "questions as to whether there has been compliance with such procedural regulations and, if not, what the consequences shall be, are for resolution by the arbitrator as incidental to the conduct of the arbitration proceeding” (Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], supra, at 8). In the instant case, the noncompliance at issue involved such procedural regulations and should be resolved by the arbitrator. Accordingly, we find that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to prevent the joinder of the petitioners as respondents in an American Arbitration Association proceeding entitled Circulation Mgt. c CBA Indus., the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated May 12, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners Chanry Communications, Ltd. (hereafter [634]*634Chanry) and Pennysaver Home Distribution Corporation (hereafter Pennysaver) contend, on appeal, that the Supreme Court erred in denying their petition to prevent this joinder in arbitration because it overlooked the fact that the agreement between the parties has not been complied with, thereby precluding arbitration. We disagree. Whether an arbitration agreement has been complied with is 1 of the 3 threshold questions, on a motion or in a proceeding to stay arbitration, to be resolved by the courts (Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 8-11; Avon Prods, v Solow, 150 AD2d 236; Matter of Hudson Watch Assocs. v H.F.S. Elec., 134 AD2d 352). The Court of Appeals has made a sharp distinction between conditions precedent to arbitration, for example, where the parties agreed that the dispute must first be submitted to a specified authority for determination, or where contractual limitations are expressly made conditions precedent to arbitration by the terms of the arbitration agreement, and conditions in arbitration, i.e., procedural regulations to be observed in the conduct of the arbitration process itself. The former fall within the judicial ambit, whereas "questions as to whether there has been compliance with such procedural regulations and, if not, what the consequences shall be, are for resolution by the arbitrator as incidental to the conduct of the arbitration proceeding” (Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], supra, at 8). In the instant case, the noncompliance at issue involved such procedural regulations and should be resolved by the arbitrator. Accordingly, we find that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 633, 549 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chanry-communications-ltd-v-circulation-management-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack