In re Arbitration between Federman & Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Arbitration between Federman & Miller

48 A.D.2d 787, 372 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9969

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

DecidedJune 12, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 787 (In re Arbitration between Federman & Miller) 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

In re Arbitration between Federman & Miller, 48 A.D.2d 787, 372 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 30, 1973, denying respondent’s motion to resettle the order of the court entered March 28, 1973, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of including the 1961 agreement in the second ordering paragraph and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with the determination of Special Term to the extent that a stay of arbitration was granted pending a preliminary hearing on the issue of the applicability of the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 7502, subd [b]; 7503, subd [b]; Matter of Andresen & Co. [Shepard], 45 AD2d 578; Matter of Schlaifer [Kaiser], 46 AD2d 850). However, the order as originally settled did not provide sufficient scope for determination of that issue. The second ordering paragraph should therefore be amended to read: [788]*788"ordered, that petitioner’s application for an order staying arbitration be, and the same hereby is, granted, and arbitration is stayed pending the determination by preliminary hearing of the applicability of the Statute of Limitations to the claims asserted herein by respondents”. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Tilzer, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 30, 1973, denying respondent’s motion to resettle the order of the court entered March 28, 1973, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of including the 1961 agreement in the second ordering paragraph and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with the determination of Special Term to the extent that a stay of arbitration was granted pending a preliminary hearing on the issue of the applicability of the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 7502, subd [b]; 7503, subd [b]; Matter of Andresen & Co. [Shepard], 45 AD2d 578; Matter of Schlaifer [Kaiser], 46 AD2d 850). However, the order as originally settled did not provide sufficient scope for determination of that issue. The second ordering paragraph should therefore be amended to read: [788]*788"ordered, that petitioner’s application for an order staying arbitration be, and the same hereby is, granted, and arbitration is stayed pending the determination by preliminary hearing of the applicability of the Statute of Limitations to the claims asserted herein by respondents”. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Tilzer, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 787, 372 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-federman-miller-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack