Congers Auto Service v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Congers Auto Service v. Hopper

205 A.D.2d 773, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 773 (Congers Auto Service v. Hopper) 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

Congers Auto Service v. Hopper, 205 A.D.2d 773, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitrator’s award, Barry Hopper appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Werner, J.), dated December 18, 1992, which granted the petition and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Having failed to apply for a stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), the appellant is precluded from raising his present claims that the agreement to arbitrate was not valid or that conditions precedent to the invocation of arbitration were not complied with (see, CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 267). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, 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 confirm an arbitrator’s award, Barry Hopper appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Werner, J.), dated December 18, 1992, which granted the petition and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Having failed to apply for a stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), the appellant is precluded from raising his present claims that the agreement to arbitrate was not valid or that conditions precedent to the invocation of arbitration were not complied with (see, CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 267). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 773, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/congers-auto-service-v-hopper-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack