Matter of State of New York - Unified Ct. Sys. v. District Council 37

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of State of New York - Unified Ct. Sys. v. District Council 37

121 A.D.3d 497, 994 N.Y.S.2d 591

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2014

Docket13210 450848/12 451679/12

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 497 (Matter of State of New York - Unified Ct. Sys. v. District Council 37) 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 State of New York - Unified Ct. Sys. v. District Council 37, 121 A.D.3d 497, 994 N.Y.S.2d 591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered July 30, 2013, permanently staying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The second petition to stay arbitration was not time-barred, although it was served five months after respondents had made a demand for arbitration, because the demand failed to include the requisite notice of the 20-day period for applying for a stay (see CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Blamowski [Munson Transp.], 91 NY2d 190, 195 [1997]; Cooper v Bruckner, 21 AD3d 758 [1st Dept 2005]). Nor is the petition barred by laches, given that the parties had stipulated to 30-day pauses in the proceedings pending, inter alia, a decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in an action involving claims similar to those raised in respondents’ arbitration demand and given respondents’ failure to show any prejudice resulting from the five-month delay in filing the petition.

Supreme Court correctly found that respondents waived their right to arbitration by commencing an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (see Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261 [1985]; Tengtu Intl. Corp. v Pak Kwan Cheung, 24 AD3d 170 [1st Dept 2005]). The claims asserted in the federal action are virtually the same as those asserted in the arbitration proceeding, namely, that petitioner’s alleged unilateral action violated the negotiated contract rights of respondents’ members, as well as placed a financial burden on the members. Indeed, respondents state that they sought in the federal forum to protect “all claims arising from [petitioner’s] unlawful unilateral changes.” Moreover, in addition to filing a complaint, respondents opposed petitioner’s motions to dismiss and to change venue, without moving to compel arbitration.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Clark, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered July 30, 2013, permanently staying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The second petition to stay arbitration was not time-barred, although it was served five months after respondents had made a demand for arbitration, because the demand failed to include the requisite notice of the 20-day period for applying for a stay (see CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Blamowski [Munson Transp.], 91 NY2d 190, 195 [1997]; Cooper v Bruckner, 21 AD3d 758 [1st Dept 2005]). Nor is the petition barred by laches, given that the parties had stipulated to 30-day pauses in the proceedings pending, inter alia, a decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in an action involving claims similar to those raised in respondents’ arbitration demand and given respondents’ failure to show any prejudice resulting from the five-month delay in filing the petition.

Supreme Court correctly found that respondents waived their right to arbitration by commencing an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (see Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261 [1985]; Tengtu Intl. Corp. v Pak Kwan Cheung, 24 AD3d 170 [1st Dept 2005]). The claims asserted in the federal action are virtually the same as those asserted in the arbitration proceeding, namely, that petitioner’s alleged unilateral action violated the negotiated contract rights of respondents’ members, as well as placed a financial burden on the members. Indeed, respondents state that they sought in the federal forum to protect “all claims arising from [petitioner’s] unlawful unilateral changes.” Moreover, in addition to filing a complaint, respondents opposed petitioner’s motions to dismiss and to change venue, without moving to compel arbitration.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 497, 994 N.Y.S.2d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-state-of-new-york-unified-ct-sys-v-district-council-37-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack