In re the Arbitration between Levine & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Levine & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

32 A.D.2d 778, 302 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3858

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

DecidedJune 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 778 (In re the Arbitration between Levine & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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 Levine & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 32 A.D.2d 778, 302 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the 'Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 25, 1968, [779]*779affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the record indicates a meritorious defense to the demand for arbitration, no intention on the .part of respondent to abandon the preliminary trial, and otherwise diligent prosecution thereof. There being no demonstrated prejudice to appellants, we conclude that Special Term did not abuse its discretion, in this proceeding by respondent to stay arbitration, in granting respondent’s motion to restore the proceeding to the calendar after it had been marked off the calendar and automatically dismissed, because not restored within a year, pursuant to CPLR 3404 (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Ackerman v. Perchikoff, 30 A D 2d 672; Blau v. Levine, 28 AD 2d 1137). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the 'Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 25, 1968, [779]*779affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the record indicates a meritorious defense to the demand for arbitration, no intention on the .part of respondent to abandon the preliminary trial, and otherwise diligent prosecution thereof. There being no demonstrated prejudice to appellants, we conclude that Special Term did not abuse its discretion, in this proceeding by respondent to stay arbitration, in granting respondent’s motion to restore the proceeding to the calendar after it had been marked off the calendar and automatically dismissed, because not restored within a year, pursuant to CPLR 3404 (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Ackerman v. Perchikoff, 30 A D 2d 672; Blau v. Levine, 28 AD 2d 1137). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 778, 302 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-levine-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack