Chapnick v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapnick v. Cohen

203 A.D.2d 362, 609 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3651

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 362 (Chapnick v. Cohen) 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

Chapnick v. Cohen, 203 A.D.2d 362, 609 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay the arbitration of a claim for damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered April 23, 1992, which denied the petition and granted the respondents’ cross motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the determination of the Supreme Court that there is no substantial question as to whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the petitioners and the respondent Howard Cohen in his capacity as architect. The petitioners retained the owner-architect agreement forwarded to them by Cohen, which contained an arbitration clause, and while they did not sign it, they and Cohen operated under the terms of the agreement for approximately one year. Moreover, when disputes arose between the parties, the petitioners sent Cohen a letter referring to the agreement and terminating the agreement due to his alleged failure to perform thereunder. Therefore, the court properly directed the parties to proceed to arbitration (see, CPLR 7503 [a]; Just In-Materials Designs v I.T.A.D. Assocs., 61 NY2d 882). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay the arbitration of a claim for damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered April 23, 1992, which denied the petition and granted the respondents’ cross motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the determination of the Supreme Court that there is no substantial question as to whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the petitioners and the respondent Howard Cohen in his capacity as architect. The petitioners retained the owner-architect agreement forwarded to them by Cohen, which contained an arbitration clause, and while they did not sign it, they and Cohen operated under the terms of the agreement for approximately one year. Moreover, when disputes arose between the parties, the petitioners sent Cohen a letter referring to the agreement and terminating the agreement due to his alleged failure to perform thereunder. Therefore, the court properly directed the parties to proceed to arbitration (see, CPLR 7503 [a]; Just In-Materials Designs v I.T.A.D. Assocs., 61 NY2d 882). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 362, 609 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapnick-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack