Jeffries v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jeffries v. Ross

238 A.D.2d 288, 657 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283

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

DecidedApril 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 288 (Jeffries v. Ross) 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

Jeffries v. Ross, 238 A.D.2d 288, 657 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on April 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s contention that there was not a valid agreement to arbitrate due to the fact that the contract as a whole was allegedly vague and therefore unenforceable is without merit (see, Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 576-577). Since the parties’ intent to arbitrate "[a]ny dispute” under the agreement was clear and unequivocal, and since respondent’s claim falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, petitioner’s application was properly denied (see, Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on April 23, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s contention that there was not a valid agreement to arbitrate due to the fact that the contract as a whole was allegedly vague and therefore unenforceable is without merit (see, Matter of Prime [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 576-577). Since the parties’ intent to arbitrate "[a]ny dispute” under the agreement was clear and unequivocal, and since respondent’s claim falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, petitioner’s application was properly denied (see, Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 288, 657 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-ross-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack