First Montauk Securities Corp. v. Chiulli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First Montauk Securities Corp. v. Chiulli

245 A.D.2d 507, 666 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13241

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 507 (First Montauk Securities Corp. v. Chiulli) 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

First Montauk Securities Corp. v. Chiulli, 245 A.D.2d 507, 666 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered November 20, 1996, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process is warranted where the arbitrator [can] not grant any relief without violating public policy” (Matter of Imperial House [Local 32B-32J], 154 AD2d 534, 535). The decisional law clearly indicates that a discharged debtor cannot pursue a claim which it failed to disclose in its schedule of assets filed with the bankruptcy court (see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y., 69 NY2d 191; Robinson v Wiertel Constr., 185 AD2d 664; In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, 160 Bankr 508). Here, the appellant, who failed to list his claim against the petitioner on a timely basis, is seeking to pursue that claim. Since the appellant’s pursuit of his claim is against public policy, any remedy fashioned by the arbitrator would be violative of that policy. Thus, the application for a stay of arbitration was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered November 20, 1996, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process is warranted where the arbitrator [can] not grant any relief without violating public policy” (Matter of Imperial House [Local 32B-32J], 154 AD2d 534, 535). The decisional law clearly indicates that a discharged debtor cannot pursue a claim which it failed to disclose in its schedule of assets filed with the bankruptcy court (see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y., 69 NY2d 191; Robinson v Wiertel Constr., 185 AD2d 664; In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, 160 Bankr 508). Here, the appellant, who failed to list his claim against the petitioner on a timely basis, is seeking to pursue that claim. Since the appellant’s pursuit of his claim is against public policy, any remedy fashioned by the arbitrator would be violative of that policy. Thus, the application for a stay of arbitration was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 507, 666 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-montauk-securities-corp-v-chiulli-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack