Lamotte v. Beiter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamotte v. Beiter

34 A.D.3d 356, 826 N.Y.S.2d 6

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 356 (Lamotte v. Beiter) 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

Lamotte v. Beiter, 34 A.D.3d 356, 826 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered June 6, 2006, which, inter alia, denied the application and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, no language in the parties’ agreement expressly made the procedures for the valuation of the holdings of the decedent’s estate conditions precedent to arbitration (see Matter of United Nations Dev. Corp. v Norkin Plumbing Co., 45 NY2d 358, 364 [1978]). Nor did the valuation provision by its own terms remove every issue relating to the valuation procedures from consideration by the arbitrators (cf. Matter of Dimson [Elghanayan], 19 NY2d 316 [1967]; Matter of American Silk Mills Corp. [Meinhard-Commercial Corp.], 35 AD2d 197 [1970]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered June 6, 2006, which, inter alia, denied the application and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, no language in the parties’ agreement expressly made the procedures for the valuation of the holdings of the decedent’s estate conditions precedent to arbitration (see Matter of United Nations Dev. Corp. v Norkin Plumbing Co., 45 NY2d 358, 364 [1978]). Nor did the valuation provision by its own terms remove every issue relating to the valuation procedures from consideration by the arbitrators (cf. Matter of Dimson [Elghanayan], 19 NY2d 316 [1967]; Matter of American Silk Mills Corp. [Meinhard-Commercial Corp.], 35 AD2d 197 [1970]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 356, 826 N.Y.S.2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamotte-v-beiter-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack