Judah Fabrics, Inc. v. Zoomers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Judah Fabrics, Inc. v. Zoomers, Inc.

192 A.D.2d 486, 598 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411

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

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 486 (Judah Fabrics, Inc. v. Zoomers, Inc.) 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

Judah Fabrics, Inc. v. Zoomers, Inc., 192 A.D.2d 486, 598 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 21, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As pointed out in 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller (NY Civ Prac ¶ 7502.15, citing an applicable decision by the Court of Appeals): "The rationale utilized by the courts in support of this position is that a contractual time limitation provision is simply another contractual provision which should be interpreted by the arbitrator like any other provision.” Accordingly petitioner’s arguments are without merit and the petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 21, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As pointed out in 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller (NY Civ Prac ¶ 7502.15, citing an applicable decision by the Court of Appeals): "The rationale utilized by the courts in support of this position is that a contractual time limitation provision is simply another contractual provision which should be interpreted by the arbitrator like any other provision.” Accordingly petitioner’s arguments are without merit and the petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 486, 598 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judah-fabrics-inc-v-zoomers-inc-nyappdiv-1993.