Herrick Feinstein LLP v. Baram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herrick Feinstein LLP v. Baram

132 A.D.3d 499, 19 N.Y.S.3d 410

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

Docket15810N 651477/14

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 499 (Herrick Feinstein LLP v. Baram) 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

Herrick Feinstein LLP v. Baram, 132 A.D.3d 499, 19 N.Y.S.3d 410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin Schweitzer, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which granted petitioner Herrick Feinstein’s motion to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that the legal malpractice arbitration commenced by respondents was barred by the statute of limitations, having been commenced more than three years after the representation ended (CPLR 214 [6]). The arbitration agreement did not implicate interstate commerce and the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply, therefore respondents’ reliance on Cusimano v Schnurr (40 Misc. 3d 1208[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51077[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2013], revd 120 AD3d 142 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 909 [2014]) is unavailing.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin Schweitzer, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which granted petitioner Herrick Feinstein’s motion to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that the legal malpractice arbitration commenced by respondents was barred by the statute of limitations, having been commenced more than three years after the representation ended (CPLR 214 [6]). The arbitration agreement did not implicate interstate commerce and the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply, therefore respondents’ reliance on Cusimano v Schnurr (40 Misc. 3d 1208[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51077[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2013], revd 120 AD3d 142 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 909 [2014]) is unavailing.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 499, 19 N.Y.S.3d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrick-feinstein-llp-v-baram-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack