In re the Arbitration between Jett & Kidder, Peabody & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Jett & Kidder, Peabody & Co.

211 A.D.2d 564, 621 N.Y.S.2d 872

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1995·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered October 11, 1994, which, in relevant part, denied the supplemental petition for expedited arbitration of a claim for advancement of expenses of defense in certain proceedings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion for an order directing the expedition of arbitration should be decided "on the basis of fairness and equity” (Matter of Salvano [Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith] 200 AD2d 431, 432, lv granted, 83 NY2d 757). It was not an abuse of discretion to deny bifurcated and expedited consideration of the advance indemnification issue at bar, since it is anticipated that the full arbitration soon will be had, the parties have agreed to submit all of their disputes to arbitration, and the respondent employer has conceded on appeal that the arbitration panel would have the power to grant a bifurcated, expedited hearing of the advance indemnification issue if it sees fit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered October 11, 1994, which, in relevant part, denied the supplemental petition for expedited arbitration of a claim for advancement of expenses of defense in certain proceedings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion for an order directing the expedition of arbitration should be decided "on the basis of fairness and equity” (Matter of Salvano [Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith] 200 AD2d 431, 432, lv granted, 83 NY2d 757). It was not an abuse of discretion to deny bifurcated and expedited consideration of the advance indemnification issue at bar, since it is anticipated that the full arbitration soon will be had, the parties have agreed to submit all of their disputes to arbitration, and the respondent employer has conceded on appeal that the arbitration panel would have the power to grant a bifurcated, expedited hearing of the advance indemnification issue if it sees fit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between Jett & Kidder, Peabody & Co., 211 A.D.2d 564, 621 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

211 A.D.2d 564 (In re the Arbitration between Jett & Kidder, Peabody & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related