Max Bayroff Corp. v. Showplace Bowling Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Max Bayroff Corp. v. Showplace Bowling Center, Inc.

187 A.D.2d 269, 590 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12588

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 269 (Max Bayroff Corp. v. Showplace Bowling Center, Inc.) 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

Max Bayroff Corp. v. Showplace Bowling Center, Inc., 187 A.D.2d 269, 590 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about April 8, 1992, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitrator’s award, and granted petitioner judgment against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Parties may appropriately place the issue of jurisdiction before the arbitrator (Matter of Kelley [Bauer], 240 NY 74, 79), and the merits of the arbitrator’s determination are subject only to limited judicial review (Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221). In any event, respondent did not timely move to stay arbitration and thus waived the issue of jurisdiction (see, CPLR 7503; Matter of Sussco Exterior Sys. v Hercules Constr. Corp., 120 AD2d 532, 533, lv denied 68 NY2d 610). Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, 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 (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about April 8, 1992, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitrator’s award, and granted petitioner judgment against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Parties may appropriately place the issue of jurisdiction before the arbitrator (Matter of Kelley [Bauer], 240 NY 74, 79), and the merits of the arbitrator’s determination are subject only to limited judicial review (Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221). In any event, respondent did not timely move to stay arbitration and thus waived the issue of jurisdiction (see, CPLR 7503; Matter of Sussco Exterior Sys. v Hercules Constr. Corp., 120 AD2d 532, 533, lv denied 68 NY2d 610). Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 269, 590 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-bayroff-corp-v-showplace-bowling-center-inc-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack