Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Betancourt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Betancourt

187 A.D.2d 593, 590 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 593 (Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Betancourt) 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

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Betancourt, 187 A.D.2d 593, 590 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated October 23, 1990, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By participating in the arbitration proceedings instead of moving to temporarily stay the proceedings, the petitioner waived its right to move for a permanent stay of arbitration (see, Matter of McNulty [Locals 40, 361, & 417 Union Sec. Funds of Intl. Assn. of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Ironworkers], 176 AD2d 881; Matter of Marfrak Corp. v Gardner, 176 AD2d 323, 324; see also, Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273; Matter of Beagle [MVAIC], 19 NY2d 834).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated October 23, 1990, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By participating in the arbitration proceedings instead of moving to temporarily stay the proceedings, the petitioner waived its right to move for a permanent stay of arbitration (see, Matter of McNulty [Locals 40, 361, & 417 Union Sec. Funds of Intl. Assn. of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Ironworkers], 176 AD2d 881; Matter of Marfrak Corp. v Gardner, 176 AD2d 323, 324; see also, Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273; Matter of Beagle [MVAIC], 19 NY2d 834).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 593, 590 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-mutual-indemnity-insurance-v-betancourt-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack