Consolidated Edison Co. v. Electric Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Electric Insurance

269 A.D.2d 288, 704 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2012

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1999, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties clearly agreed to submit to “alternate dispute resolution” (i.e., arbitration or “such other procedure to which GE and Con Ed may agree in writing”) any dispute, including one involving waiver, arising out of any judgment or settlement in the underlying wrongful death action(s). Since this agreement is unquestionably valid and timely invoked, and, indeed, has been scrupulously complied with by respondent to petitioner’s advantage, the present dispute arising out of the judgment in the underlying action was properly found by the IAS Court one to be resolved exclusively through arbitration (see, Matter of Prime v Jonas, 38 NY2d 570, 574; Olympia & York OLP Co. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 214 AD2d 509, 511-512). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1999, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties clearly agreed to submit to “alternate dispute resolution” (i.e., arbitration or “such other procedure to which GE and Con Ed may agree in writing”) any dispute, including one involving waiver, arising out of any judgment or settlement in the underlying wrongful death action(s). Since this agreement is unquestionably valid and timely invoked, and, indeed, has been scrupulously complied with by respondent to petitioner’s advantage, the present dispute arising out of the judgment in the underlying action was properly found by the IAS Court one to be resolved exclusively through arbitration (see, Matter of Prime v Jonas, 38 NY2d 570, 574; Olympia & York OLP Co. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 214 AD2d 509, 511-512). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Electric Insurance, 269 A.D.2d 288, 704 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 288 (Consolidated Edison Co. v. Electric Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related