Matter of Azeem v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Azeem v. Murphy

139 A.D.3d 610, 30 N.Y.S.3d 821

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

DecidedMay 26, 2016

Docket1286N 653489/15

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 610 (Matter of Azeem v. Murphy) 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

Matter of Azeem v. Murphy, 139 A.D.3d 610, 30 N.Y.S.3d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2015, which declined to sign petitioner’s order to show cause seeking a stay of an arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The court’s order declining to sign petitioner’s order to show cause is not appealable (M & J Trimming v Kew Mgt. Corp., 254 AD2d 21 [1st Dept 1998]; see also McKanic v Amigos del Museo del Barrio, 74 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 849 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011], rearg denied 17 NY3d 856 [2011]; CPLR 5701 [a] [2]).

Even if the matter were properly before us, we would find that petitioner is not entitled to a stay of the pending arbitration between the parties (see CPLR 7503 [b]; 7502 [b]). The amended statement of claim filed in the arbitration is timely, since it simply provides more details to support the timely original claim (see Robinson v Canniff, 22 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2015, which declined to sign petitioner’s order to show cause seeking a stay of an arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The court’s order declining to sign petitioner’s order to show cause is not appealable (M & J Trimming v Kew Mgt. Corp., 254 AD2d 21 [1st Dept 1998]; see also McKanic v Amigos del Museo del Barrio, 74 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 849 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011], rearg denied 17 NY3d 856 [2011]; CPLR 5701 [a] [2]).

Even if the matter were properly before us, we would find that petitioner is not entitled to a stay of the pending arbitration between the parties (see CPLR 7503 [b]; 7502 [b]). The amended statement of claim filed in the arbitration is timely, since it simply provides more details to support the timely original claim (see Robinson v Canniff, 22 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 610, 30 N.Y.S.3d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-azeem-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack