D'Allesandro v. Olitsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Allesandro v. Olitsky

264 A.D.2d 800, 695 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 800 (D'Allesandro v. Olitsky) 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

D'Allesandro v. Olitsky, 264 A.D.2d 800, 695 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Myron Olitsky and Rose Olitsky appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 10, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and denied their cross motion to compel the plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the plaintiffs’ prior counsel lacked the apparent authority to execute an arbitration agreement on their behalf (see, Matter of Koss Co-Graphics v Cohen, 166 AD2d 649; Melstein v Schmid Labs., 116 AD2d 632). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly restored the action to the trial calendar and denied the defendants’ cross motion to compel arbitration. Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Myron Olitsky and Rose Olitsky appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 10, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and denied their cross motion to compel the plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the plaintiffs’ prior counsel lacked the apparent authority to execute an arbitration agreement on their behalf (see, Matter of Koss Co-Graphics v Cohen, 166 AD2d 649; Melstein v Schmid Labs., 116 AD2d 632). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly restored the action to the trial calendar and denied the defendants’ cross motion to compel arbitration. Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 800, 695 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallesandro-v-olitsky-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack