Katz v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Katz

113 A.D.3d 598, 977 N.Y.2d 902

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 598 (Katz v. Katz) 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

Katz v. Katz, 113 A.D.3d 598, 977 N.Y.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[599]*599The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, for a partnership accounting. The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint. The documentary evidence submitted by the defendants conclusively established as a matter of law that the parties had agreed to submit any dispute arising out of the operation of the partnership to arbitration before an orthodox Jewish Beth Din (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Sisters of St. John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998-999 [1986]; Rudolph & Beer v Roberts, 260 AD2d 274, 276 [1999]; Ticker v Trager, 106 AD2d 443, 443-444 [1984]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination. Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[599]*599The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, for a partnership accounting. The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint. The documentary evidence submitted by the defendants conclusively established as a matter of law that the parties had agreed to submit any dispute arising out of the operation of the partnership to arbitration before an orthodox Jewish Beth Din (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Sisters of St. John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998-999 [1986]; Rudolph & Beer v Roberts, 260 AD2d 274, 276 [1999]; Ticker v Trager, 106 AD2d 443, 443-444 [1984]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination. Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 598, 977 N.Y.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-katz-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack