Matter of ROM Reins. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of ROM Reins. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., Inc.

128 A.D.3d 570, 8 N.Y.S.3d 569

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 2015·No. 15198N 654480/12·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered January 22, 2015, denying the petition to stay arbitration on statute of limitations grounds, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners participated in the arbitrator selection process, even though they were undoubtedly aware of their statute of limitations claim. Under these circumstances, the court correctly determined that petitioners participated in the arbitration and therefore are precluded from seeking a stay on statute of limitations grounds pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Khait, 227 AD2d 551 [2d Dept 1996]; compare Cybex Intl. v Fuqua Enters., 246 AD2d 316, 316-317 [1998] [the petitioner did not waive its right to seek a stay of arbitration by participating in arbitral discovery and the selection of an arbitrator before it had received detailed specification of the respondent’s claims]). Although petitioners have waived their ability to have the courts determine the statute of limitations issue, the issue may be determined by the arbitrators.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments, including that this Court had previously determined the participation issue (see 115 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2014]), and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered January 22, 2015, denying the petition to stay arbitration on statute of limitations grounds, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners participated in the arbitrator selection process, even though they were undoubtedly aware of their statute of limitations claim. Under these circumstances, the court correctly determined that petitioners participated in the arbitration and therefore are precluded from seeking a stay on statute of limitations grounds pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Khait, 227 AD2d 551 [2d Dept 1996]; compare Cybex Intl. v Fuqua Enters., 246 AD2d 316, 316-317 [1998] [the petitioner did not waive its right to seek a stay of arbitration by participating in arbitral discovery and the selection of an arbitrator before it had received detailed specification of the respondent’s claims]). Although petitioners have waived their ability to have the courts determine the statute of limitations issue, the issue may be determined by the arbitrators.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments, including that this Court had previously determined the participation issue (see 115 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2014]), and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of ROM Reins. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., Inc., 128 A.D.3d 570, 8 N.Y.S.3d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

128 A.D.3d 570 (Matter of ROM Reins. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related