Matter of Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman

2017 NY Slip Op 5192, 151 A.D.3d 642, 54 N.Y.S.3d 577

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

DecidedJune 27, 2017

Docket4379N 653961/16

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5192 (Matter of Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman) 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 Capital Enters. Co. v. Dworman, 2017 NY Slip Op 5192, 151 A.D.3d 642, 54 N.Y.S.3d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (.Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying petitioner Capital Enterprises Co.’s motion to compel the arbitration of its partnership dissolution claim (including the distribution of assets), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to compel granted.

Since the alleged oral agreement to sell or transfer partnership assets attempts to modify several substantive provisions of petitioner’s partnership agreement concerning the distribution of partnership assets, the broad arbitration provision of the partnership agreement controls the parties’ dispute (see Matter of Helmsley [Wien], 173 AD2d 280 [1st Dept 1991]). The merits of the claims, such as the applicability of the statute of frauds, should be determined by the arbitrator (see CPLR 7501; Matter of Praetorian Realty Corp. [Presidential Towers Residence], 40 NY2d 897, 898 [1976]).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Webber, Gesmer and Kern, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (.Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 3, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying petitioner Capital Enterprises Co.’s motion to compel the arbitration of its partnership dissolution claim (including the distribution of assets), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to compel granted.

Since the alleged oral agreement to sell or transfer partnership assets attempts to modify several substantive provisions of petitioner’s partnership agreement concerning the distribution of partnership assets, the broad arbitration provision of the partnership agreement controls the parties’ dispute (see Matter of Helmsley [Wien], 173 AD2d 280 [1st Dept 1991]). The merits of the claims, such as the applicability of the statute of frauds, should be determined by the arbitrator (see CPLR 7501; Matter of Praetorian Realty Corp. [Presidential Towers Residence], 40 NY2d 897, 898 [1976]).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Webber, Gesmer and Kern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5192, 151 A.D.3d 642, 54 N.Y.S.3d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-capital-enters-co-v-dworman-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack