Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF YAK TAXI, INC. v. Teke

MATTER OF YAK TAXI, INC. v. Teke

363 N.E.2d 1372, 41 N.Y.2d 1020, 41 N.Y. 1020, 395 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2071
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 26, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 363 N.E.2d 1372 (MATTER OF YAK TAXI, INC. v. Teke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF YAK TAXI, INC. v. Teke, 363 N.E.2d 1372, 41 N.Y.2d 1020, 41 N.Y. 1020, 395 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2071 (N.Y. 1977).

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We hold that petitioner did not move properly for a stay of arbitration within the 20-day time limit required by CPLR 7503 (subd [c]). Petitioner’s attempted compliance by sending respondent a copy of an application to stay arbitration, within the required period, by ordinary mail does not satisfy the requirements of that provision, which states "[njotice of such application [to stay arbitration] shall be served in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested”. Petitioner urges that our holding in Matter of Knickerbocker Ins. Co. [Gilbert] (28 NY2d 57) is authority for the service attempted in the case before us. We do not agree. In that case, service of the notice to stay arbitration was effected by posting a certified letter, return receipt requested (as specifically required by law), the letter being addressed to claimant’s attorney. This court there held, inter alia, that the service was proper since the demand for arbitration was served by claimant’s attorney (whose name and address appeared thereon) on behalf of the claimant, in the first instance; and that there was, in effect, an appointment of claimant’s attorney as agent for service. Of interest, following the decision in Knickerbocker (supra), CPLR 7503 (subd [c]) was amended to statutorily permit service of an application to stay arbitration upon claimant’s attorney "if the attorney’s name appears on the demand for arbitration or the notice of intention to arbitrate”. At all times, however, and regardless of to whom the application to stay is addressed, service has been required to be made "in the same manner as *1022 a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested”. Since there was a lack of compliance, the present proceeding was jurisdictionally defective, and there must be an affirmance.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Matter of Hereford Ins. Co. v. Joyner
2025 NY Slip Op 06319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Reid
2020 NY Slip Op 3517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
New York State Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. TD Bank, N.A.
55 Misc. 3d 395 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Czumaj
9 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Cartier v. County of Nassau
281 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Metropolitan Casualty & Property Insurance v. Suggs
268 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Rodriguez v. Allstate Insurance
180 Misc. 2d 969 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1999)
In re the Arbitration between Progressive Insurance & Stoddard
235 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Eagle Insurance v. Kahan
232 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Collins CMO Fund Ltd.
879 F. Supp. 406 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Moskowitz v. Lieberman
158 Misc. 2d 1031 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
In re the Arbitration between DeCharo & Cutco Industries, Inc.
183 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Hanover Insurance v. McIntyre
142 A.D.2d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
J.P.L., Inc. v. L & A Music Co.
112 A.D.2d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Seiler v. Kemper Insurance
100 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
In re the Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & Pasternack
121 Misc. 2d 196 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Rider Insurance v. Marino
84 A.D.2d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Gladstone
83 A.D.2d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In re the Arbitration between Green Bus Lines, Inc. & Elliot
102 Misc. 2d 1029 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
In re the Arbitration between Spychalski & Continental Insurance
58 A.D.2d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
363 N.E.2d 1372, 41 N.Y.2d 1020, 41 N.Y. 1020, 395 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-yak-taxi-inc-v-teke-ny-1977.