In re the Arbitration between Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance & Bishop

29 A.D.2d 646, 286 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 3, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 646 (In re the Arbitration between Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance & Bishop) 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 the Arbitration between Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance & Bishop, 29 A.D.2d 646, 286 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

In a renewed proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 23, 1967. Appeal dismissed, without costs, insofar as it is from (1) the first ordering paragraph of the order, which grants a temporary stay of arbitration, refers the issue of whether defendant Antonio Torres was uninsured at the time of the occurrence of the accident herein to a Special Referee for hearing and report, and otherwise holds the stay application in abeyance pending confirmation or disaffirmance of the report; and (2) the third ordering paragraph, which implements the first ordering paragraph. Otherwise, order reversed, without costs, and in accordance the second ordering paragraph, which directs petitioner to make an election, is struck out. This determination is made without prejudice to the subsequent granting of the same or similar relief. So much of the first ordering paragraph as grants a temporary stay of arbitration and holds the application for a permanent stay in abeyance contains nothing as to which appellant is aggrieved. As to the provision therein referring a primary issue to a Referee to hear and report, an order to such effect is not appealable (Ayers v. Ayers, 16 A D 2d 926); and this should apply to the third ordering paragraph, which merely implements that provision. In the interests of orderly procedure, we deem it advisable to delete the second ordering paragraph. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

OET Bldrs., LLC v. Ohuche
189 N.Y.S.3d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.2d 646, 286 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-graphic-arts-mutual-insurance-bishop-nyappdiv-1968.