Diemaco v. Colt's Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diemaco v. Colt's Manufacturing Co.

236 A.D.2d 289, 654 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1406

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 289 (Diemaco v. Colt's Manufacturing Co.) 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

Diemaco v. Colt's Manufacturing Co., 236 A.D.2d 289, 654 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 2, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since petitioner failed to raise its objections to the applicability of the arbitration agreement in a timely application for a stay pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), the IAS Court properly dismissed the petition as time-barred. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s contention that a stay is warranted because there was no express, direct and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate between itself and respondent. The unambiguous incorporation of the License Agreement between respondent and the Canadian government, which contains an arbitration clause, into petitioner’s subsequent agreements with respondent indisputably demonstrates petitioner’s intention to arbitrate. Petitioner’s agreement to arbitrate can also be implied from its repeated acknowledgements in a related Federal action that the unresolved issues raised by respondent are subject to arbitration (see, Matter of Transrol Navegacao, 782 F Supp 848). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 2, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since petitioner failed to raise its objections to the applicability of the arbitration agreement in a timely application for a stay pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), the IAS Court properly dismissed the petition as time-barred. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s contention that a stay is warranted because there was no express, direct and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate between itself and respondent. The unambiguous incorporation of the License Agreement between respondent and the Canadian government, which contains an arbitration clause, into petitioner’s subsequent agreements with respondent indisputably demonstrates petitioner’s intention to arbitrate. Petitioner’s agreement to arbitrate can also be implied from its repeated acknowledgements in a related Federal action that the unresolved issues raised by respondent are subject to arbitration (see, Matter of Transrol Navegacao, 782 F Supp 848). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 289, 654 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diemaco-v-colts-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack