In re the Estate of Cassone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cassone

100 A.D.2d 606, 473 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17589

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 606 (In re the Estate of Cassone) 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 Estate of Cassone, 100 A.D.2d 606, 473 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd [c]) to obtain disclosure in aid of [607]*607bringing an action, Rocco R. Cassone, John J. Cassone, J. J. Cassone Bakery, Inc., Cassone Brothers, Inc., Bent Realty Corp., and J. J. Cassone Bakery, a partnership, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered January 27, 1984, which ordered a hearing on (1) their motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd [a]) to compel arbitration and to stay judicial proceedings and (2) the cross motion of the petitioners pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd [b]) to stay arbitration, for the purpose of determining whether or not there was in fact a valid agreement to arbitrate. 1 The order of this court dated March 7, 1984 is deemed to have granted leave to appeal. U Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, cross motion denied, the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration, and proceedings on the application for discovery in aid of bringing an action and any subsequent action or proceedings between the parties are stayed pending said arbitration. I Petitioners’ allegations concerning joint representation of the parties at the time the subject agreement was entered into did not raise a substantial question as to the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42; Matter of Tringali [Focus on Sports], 91 AD2d 887). Petitioners’ remaining contentions concern matters reserved for arbitration (see I.J.S. Fabrics v Dan River, Inc., 56 NY2d 755, affg 81 AD2d 525; Inryco, Inc. v Parsons & Whittemore Contrs. Corp., 55 NY2d 666; Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow, 51 NY2d 181). Because petitioners failed to raise a “substantial question whether a valid agreement [to arbitrate] was made” (CPLR 7503, subd [a]), no hearing was warranted. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd [c]) to obtain disclosure in aid of [607]*607bringing an action, Rocco R. Cassone, John J. Cassone, J. J. Cassone Bakery, Inc., Cassone Brothers, Inc., Bent Realty Corp., and J. J. Cassone Bakery, a partnership, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered January 27, 1984, which ordered a hearing on (1) their motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd [a]) to compel arbitration and to stay judicial proceedings and (2) the cross motion of the petitioners pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd [b]) to stay arbitration, for the purpose of determining whether or not there was in fact a valid agreement to arbitrate. 1 The order of this court dated March 7, 1984 is deemed to have granted leave to appeal. U Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, cross motion denied, the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration, and proceedings on the application for discovery in aid of bringing an action and any subsequent action or proceedings between the parties are stayed pending said arbitration. I Petitioners’ allegations concerning joint representation of the parties at the time the subject agreement was entered into did not raise a substantial question as to the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42; Matter of Tringali [Focus on Sports], 91 AD2d 887). Petitioners’ remaining contentions concern matters reserved for arbitration (see I.J.S. Fabrics v Dan River, Inc., 56 NY2d 755, affg 81 AD2d 525; Inryco, Inc. v Parsons & Whittemore Contrs. Corp., 55 NY2d 666; Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow, 51 NY2d 181). Because petitioners failed to raise a “substantial question whether a valid agreement [to arbitrate] was made” (CPLR 7503, subd [a]), no hearing was warranted. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 606, 473 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cassone-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack