Curran v. Estate of Curran

87 A.D.3d 607, 928 N.Y.2d 463
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 16, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

That branch of the motion of the defendant Estate of Thomas E Curran, Sr. (hereinafter the defendant), which was pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) (1) dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it should have been denied. “An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action,” and thus, as here, it may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss a complaint based on documentary evidence (Allied Bldg. Inspectors Intl. Union of Operating Engrs., Local Union No. 211, AFL-CIO v Office of Labor Relations of City of N.Y., 45 NY2d 735, 738 [1978]; see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Nachman v Jenelo Corp., 25 AD3d 593 [2006]; Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40-41 [2005]; Schwartz v Schmergel, 121 AD2d 527 [1986]).

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs remaining contention is academic. Skelos, J.E, Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Curran v. Estate of Curran, 87 A.D.3d 607, 928 N.Y.2d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

87 A.D.3d 607 (Curran v. Estate of Curran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mozzachio v. Schanzer
2020 NY Slip Op 06522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
C & M 345 North Main Street, LLC v. Nikko Construction Corp.
96 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wen Zong Yu v. Charles Schwab & Co.
34 Misc. 3d 32 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)