L & R Exploration Venture v. Grynberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

L & R Exploration Venture v. Grynberg

301 A.D.2d 385, 753 N.Y.S.2d 76, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 106

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 385 (L & R Exploration Venture v. Grynberg) 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

L & R Exploration Venture v. Grynberg, 301 A.D.2d 385, 753 N.Y.S.2d 76, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2002, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition to the extent of dismissing the petition as to respondent Celeste C. Grynberg and referring the matter to a Special Referee to hear and report with recom[386]*386mendations on the issue of whether respondent Jack J. Grynberg has sufficient contacts with New York State to provide New York courts with a basis for exercising jurisdiction over his person, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where petitioners are attempting to compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration provision contained in a joint venture agreement which, by its terms, expired on January 1, 1964, the motion court, which was presented with respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction and conflicting claims regarding respondent Jack Grynberg’s contacts with New York, properly ordered an immediate trial of the factual issues raised on the motion (CPLR 3211 [c]).

Without personal jurisdiction over him the New York courts lack the power to decide the ultimate question of whether Mr. Grynberg, indisputably a resident of Colorado, should be compelled to arbitrate his dispute with petitioners rather than pursue his claims in the Colorado courts, where he already has a suit pending against them and where presumably they could have sought to compel arbitration (see generally Koob v IDS Fin. Servs., 213 AD2d 26, 34-36).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2002, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition to the extent of dismissing the petition as to respondent Celeste C. Grynberg and referring the matter to a Special Referee to hear and report with recom[386]*386mendations on the issue of whether respondent Jack J. Grynberg has sufficient contacts with New York State to provide New York courts with a basis for exercising jurisdiction over his person, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where petitioners are attempting to compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration provision contained in a joint venture agreement which, by its terms, expired on January 1, 1964, the motion court, which was presented with respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction and conflicting claims regarding respondent Jack Grynberg’s contacts with New York, properly ordered an immediate trial of the factual issues raised on the motion (CPLR 3211 [c]).

Without personal jurisdiction over him the New York courts lack the power to decide the ultimate question of whether Mr. Grynberg, indisputably a resident of Colorado, should be compelled to arbitrate his dispute with petitioners rather than pursue his claims in the Colorado courts, where he already has a suit pending against them and where presumably they could have sought to compel arbitration (see generally Koob v IDS Fin. Servs., 213 AD2d 26, 34-36).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 385, 753 N.Y.S.2d 76, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-r-exploration-venture-v-grynberg-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack