Horowitz v. Pitterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horowitz v. Pitterman

178 A.D.2d 939, 578 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17759

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 939 (Horowitz v. Pitterman) 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

Horowitz v. Pitterman, 178 A.D.2d 939, 578 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in determining the merits of respondent’s claim, which is presently before an arbitrator, that the partnership agreement was invalid and unenforceable. Because respondent failed to apply for a stay of arbitration within 20 days after service of the notice of intention to arbitrate, he was barred from seeking judicial intervention in the arbitration proceeding (see, Dra-Po Constr. Co. v Riso & Sons Co., 149 AD2d 651, 652; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Jones-BarnettJ 143 AD2d 570). At that juncture Supreme Court was without authority to become involved in the arbitration proceeding until the matter had concluded (see, Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. v Susquehanna Val. Teachers’ Assn., 101 AD2d 933, Iv dismissed 63 NY2d 610). Consequently, it was impermissible for Supreme Court to "express any view as to 'whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute’. (CPLR 7501.)” (Matter of Spychalski [Continental Ins. Cos.], 45 NY2d 847, 849.) Accordingly, we modify Supreme Court’s order by deleting the second ordering paragraph. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Injunctive Relief.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in determining the merits of respondent’s claim, which is presently before an arbitrator, that the partnership agreement was invalid and unenforceable. Because respondent failed to apply for a stay of arbitration within 20 days after service of the notice of intention to arbitrate, he was barred from seeking judicial intervention in the arbitration proceeding (see, Dra-Po Constr. Co. v Riso & Sons Co., 149 AD2d 651, 652; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Jones-BarnettJ 143 AD2d 570). At that juncture Supreme Court was without authority to become involved in the arbitration proceeding until the matter had concluded (see, Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. v Susquehanna Val. Teachers’ Assn., 101 AD2d 933, Iv dismissed 63 NY2d 610). Consequently, it was impermissible for Supreme Court to "express any view as to 'whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute’. (CPLR 7501.)” (Matter of Spychalski [Continental Ins. Cos.], 45 NY2d 847, 849.) Accordingly, we modify Supreme Court’s order by deleting the second ordering paragraph. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Injunctive Relief.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 939, 578 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-v-pitterman-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack