In re the Arbitration between Howe Associates & Comstock, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Howe Associates & Comstock, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 55, 605 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 55 (In re the Arbitration between Howe Associates & Comstock, Inc.) 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 Howe Associates & Comstock, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 55, 605 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1992, granting petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration pending a hearing on the issue of whether petitioner was bound by an arbitration agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application to stay arbitration was properly granted, although made more than 20 days after receipt of notice of intent to arbitrate (see, CPLR 7503 [c]), since the parties’ contract involves interstate commerce, which is gov[56]*56erned by the Federal Arbitration Act (see, Rothberg v Loeb, Rhoades & Co., 445 F Supp 1336, 1339). That Act does not limit the time within which a stay must be sought. Since there was a threshold question whether petitioner entered into the contract, the IAS Court properly stayed the arbitration pending an evidentiary hearing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1992, granting petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration pending a hearing on the issue of whether petitioner was bound by an arbitration agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application to stay arbitration was properly granted, although made more than 20 days after receipt of notice of intent to arbitrate (see, CPLR 7503 [c]), since the parties’ contract involves interstate commerce, which is gov[56]*56erned by the Federal Arbitration Act (see, Rothberg v Loeb, Rhoades & Co., 445 F Supp 1336, 1339). That Act does not limit the time within which a stay must be sought. Since there was a threshold question whether petitioner entered into the contract, the IAS Court properly stayed the arbitration pending an evidentiary hearing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 55, 605 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-howe-associates-comstock-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack