In re Ohr Torah Institute

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ohr Torah Institute

276 A.D.2d 634, 714 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 634 (In re Ohr Torah Institute) 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 Ohr Torah Institute, 276 A.D.2d 634, 714 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated January 25, 1999, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent “ ‘evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly [635]*635agreed to arbitrate their disputes’ ” (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183; Schubtex, Inc. v Allen Snyder, Inc., 49 NY2d 1, 6). The agreement must be clear, explicit, and unequivocal (see, Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509, 512) and must not depend upon implication or subtlety (see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], supra). The petitioner failed to affirmatively establish that the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated January 25, 1999, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent “ ‘evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly [635]*635agreed to arbitrate their disputes’ ” (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183; Schubtex, Inc. v Allen Snyder, Inc., 49 NY2d 1, 6). The agreement must be clear, explicit, and unequivocal (see, Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509, 512) and must not depend upon implication or subtlety (see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], supra). The petitioner failed to affirmatively establish that the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 634, 714 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ohr-torah-institute-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack