Manos v. Interbank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manos v. Interbank

202 A.D.2d 403, 608 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1943

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 403 (Manos v. Interbank) 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

Manos v. Interbank, 202 A.D.2d 403, 608 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated April 21, 1992, which denied the motion of the defendants other than Stylianos S. Zawos to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to compel a party to arbitrate pursuant to a contractual agreement there must be "no substantial question [as to] whether a valid agreement was made or complied with” (CPLR 7503 [a]). In the event such question is raised, it is for the court to adjudicate (CPLR 7503 [a]). The appellants claimed that an employment agreement that was executed by the plaintiff was invalid on the ground that a condition precedent to the contract was never satisfied. The alleged employment agreement included an arbitration provision. Because the appellants denied the validity of the entire employment agreement, the issue of whether a condition precedent has been satisfied is for the courts to determine (see, Matter of Cassone, 63 NY2d 756, 759). If it is determined that a valid contract exists, the appellants will be entitled to arbitration. However, we do not reach the issue of whether the plaintiff’s discrimination claim is arbitrable. Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated April 21, 1992, which denied the motion of the defendants other than Stylianos S. Zawos to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to compel a party to arbitrate pursuant to a contractual agreement there must be "no substantial question [as to] whether a valid agreement was made or complied with” (CPLR 7503 [a]). In the event such question is raised, it is for the court to adjudicate (CPLR 7503 [a]). The appellants claimed that an employment agreement that was executed by the plaintiff was invalid on the ground that a condition precedent to the contract was never satisfied. The alleged employment agreement included an arbitration provision. Because the appellants denied the validity of the entire employment agreement, the issue of whether a condition precedent has been satisfied is for the courts to determine (see, Matter of Cassone, 63 NY2d 756, 759). If it is determined that a valid contract exists, the appellants will be entitled to arbitration. However, we do not reach the issue of whether the plaintiff’s discrimination claim is arbitrable. Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 403, 608 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manos-v-interbank-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack