Grobman v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grobman v. Lefrak

51 A.D.2d 761, 379 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11319

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 761 (Grobman v. Lefrak) 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

Grobman v. Lefrak, 51 A.D.2d 761, 379 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration and (2) an action to recover damages for breach of contract, in which the defendants therein moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to stay further proceedings in the action pending arbitration, the appeal is from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 1, 1975, and (2) as limited by appellants’ brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 15, 1975, as, upon reargument adhered to the prior determination and denied the application for a stay of arbitration. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Respondents are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. The arbitration clause contained in the original agreement, which was adopted in the subsequent modification agreement, covered the issue of repurchase involved in this case. Consequently, Special Term’s determination was proper. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration and (2) an action to recover damages for breach of contract, in which the defendants therein moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to stay further proceedings in the action pending arbitration, the appeal is from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 1, 1975, and (2) as limited by appellants’ brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 15, 1975, as, upon reargument adhered to the prior determination and denied the application for a stay of arbitration. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Respondents are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. The arbitration clause contained in the original agreement, which was adopted in the subsequent modification agreement, covered the issue of repurchase involved in this case. Consequently, Special Term’s determination was proper. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 761, 379 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grobman-v-lefrak-nyappdiv-1976.