Metamorphosis Construction Corp. v. Glekel

247 A.D.2d 231, 668 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 231 (Metamorphosis Construction Corp. v. Glekel) 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
Metamorphosis Construction Corp. v. Glekel, 247 A.D.2d 231, 668 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), entered July 16, 1997, which granted petitioner’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration with respect to two counterclaims and for costs, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a party will not be compelled to arbitrate absent evidence that affirmatively establishes an express agreement to do so (see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181). The court properly stayed arbitration of the counterclaim against petitioner’s president since he did not contract with respondent or agree to arbitration in his individual capacity (see, Matter of Jevremov [Crisci], 129 AD2d 174). “[C]onflicting allegations as to the real intent of the parties herein are insufficient to create a triable issue in the face of [the corporate president’s] signing of the contract in his official capacity only” (supra, at 176-177), and the court properly found that the contrary interpretation urged by respondents conflicted with reason and experience (see, Salzman Sign Co. v Beck, 10 NY2d 63, 66-67).

The court’s determination that respondents’ conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), and consequent award of costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, was not an improvident exercise of discretion and therefore should not be disturbed (see, McCue v McCue, 225 AD2d 975, 977).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Adago v. Sy
2022 NY Slip Op 03435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
In re the Arbitration between Giamo & Visscher
94 A.D.3d 1395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
JMT Bros. Realty, LLC v. First Realty Builders, Inc.
51 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Capital v. Damon Realty Corp.
299 A.D.2d 158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Mionis v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.
301 A.D.2d 104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
JT & T Air Conditioning Corp. v. BG National P & H Inc.
293 A.D.2d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 231, 668 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metamorphosis-construction-corp-v-glekel-nyappdiv-1998.