Greenky v. Aytes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenky v. Aytes

40 A.D.3d 545, 836 N.Y.S.2d 191

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

DecidedMay 31, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 545 (Greenky v. Aytes) 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

Greenky v. Aytes, 40 A.D.3d 545, 836 N.Y.S.2d 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for a stay of this action pending arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion granted.

As “[a]ctions may be stayed temporarily pending arbitration proceedings where the resolution of the issues in the latter may also resolve and render academic issues in the former” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Associated Intl. Ins. Co., 210 AD2d 133, 133 [1994], quoting Corbetta Constr. Co. v Driscoll Co., 17 AD2d 176, 179 [1962]), the court erred in denying the stay herein. The personal management agreement contained a broad arbitration clause, and the exception for “collection of any past due monies” is inapplicable since issues in the underlying arbitra[546]*546tion include, inter alia, whether the agreement was void ab initio or, alternatively, had been validly terminated, which would render any claim of monies due moot. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for a stay of this action pending arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion granted.

As “[a]ctions may be stayed temporarily pending arbitration proceedings where the resolution of the issues in the latter may also resolve and render academic issues in the former” (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Associated Intl. Ins. Co., 210 AD2d 133, 133 [1994], quoting Corbetta Constr. Co. v Driscoll Co., 17 AD2d 176, 179 [1962]), the court erred in denying the stay herein. The personal management agreement contained a broad arbitration clause, and the exception for “collection of any past due monies” is inapplicable since issues in the underlying arbitra[546]*546tion include, inter alia, whether the agreement was void ab initio or, alternatively, had been validly terminated, which would render any claim of monies due moot. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 545, 836 N.Y.S.2d 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenky-v-aytes-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack