Curran v. Estate of Curran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curran v. Estate of Curran

87 A.D.3d 607, 928 N.Y.2d 463

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 607 (Curran v. Estate of Curran) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 607, 928 N.Y.2d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curran-v-estate-of-curran-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack