Nachman v. Jenelo Corp.

25 A.D.3d 593, 807 N.Y.S.2d 408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 17, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 593 (Nachman v. Jenelo Corp.) 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
Nachman v. Jenelo Corp., 25 A.D.3d 593, 807 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated January 5, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court had no authority to dismiss the complaint merely because the subject shareholders’ agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause (see Allied Bldg. Inspectors Intl. Union of Operating Engrs., Local Union No. 211, AFL-CIO v Office of Labor Relations of City of N.Y., 45 NY2d 735, 738 [1978]). Rather, upon a proper and timely motion by the [594]*594defendants pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a), the court could have stayed the action and directed the parties to arbitrate. In the six years this action has been pending, however, the defendants never moved for relief under CPLR 7503 (a). Instead, they answered the complaint, asserted a counterclaim, and even moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under the circumstances, the defendants waived their right to arbitration (see Grenadeir Parking Corp. v Landmark Assoc., 294 AD2d 313 [2002]; see also Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 272 [1985]). Accordingly, the order must be reversed insofar as appealed from and the complaint reinstated. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

P.S. Fin., LLC v. Eureka Woodworks, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 00877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Mozzachio v. Schanzer
2020 NY Slip Op 06522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
C & M 345 North Main Street, LLC v. Nikko Construction Corp.
96 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wen Zong Yu v. Charles Schwab & Co.
34 Misc. 3d 32 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Curran v. Estate of Curran
87 A.D.3d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. v. Joseph Mauro & Son, Inc.
36 A.D.3d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.D.3d 593, 807 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nachman-v-jenelo-corp-nyappdiv-2006.