North Hills Office Service v. Bevona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Hills Office Service v. Bevona

222 A.D.2d 245, 635 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12705

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 245 (North Hills Office Service v. Bevona) 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

North Hills Office Service v. Bevona, 222 A.D.2d 245, 635 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on or about September 27, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the IAS Court should not have directed the parties to arbitration without first conducting a hearing or allowing disclosure on whether the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and thus the agreement to arbitrate contained therein, were induced by a fraudulent representation that only employees at one particular site were to be covered. The conclusory allegations in petitioner’s moving papers and the letter from respondent returning a copy of the first such agreement between the parties and stating that it covered the employees at the particular site in question are insufficient to raise a "substantial question” as to whether petitioner justifiably relied on a misrepresentation of fact concerning the scope of the agreement (CPLR 7503 [a]; see, Matter of Schachter [Witte & Co.], 41 NY2d 1067). The initial agreement and all succeeding ones expressly state that they apply to all employees at "any facility” in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and no specific mention of the site in question is anywhere made. In addition, petitioner was represented by an experienced labor consultant and makes no claim that its representatives were unable to read or understand the relevant provision (see, Norstar Bank v Office Control Sys., 165 AD2d 265, 267-268, Iv dismissed 78 NY2d 1110). Accordingly, the court properly directed the parties to arbitrate the issue of whether the agreement was intended to be site specific, a matter clearly falling within the scope of the arbitration clause. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on or about September 27, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the IAS Court should not have directed the parties to arbitration without first conducting a hearing or allowing disclosure on whether the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and thus the agreement to arbitrate contained therein, were induced by a fraudulent representation that only employees at one particular site were to be covered. The conclusory allegations in petitioner’s moving papers and the letter from respondent returning a copy of the first such agreement between the parties and stating that it covered the employees at the particular site in question are insufficient to raise a "substantial question” as to whether petitioner justifiably relied on a misrepresentation of fact concerning the scope of the agreement (CPLR 7503 [a]; see, Matter of Schachter [Witte & Co.], 41 NY2d 1067). The initial agreement and all succeeding ones expressly state that they apply to all employees at "any facility” in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and no specific mention of the site in question is anywhere made. In addition, petitioner was represented by an experienced labor consultant and makes no claim that its representatives were unable to read or understand the relevant provision (see, Norstar Bank v Office Control Sys., 165 AD2d 265, 267-268, Iv dismissed 78 NY2d 1110). Accordingly, the court properly directed the parties to arbitrate the issue of whether the agreement was intended to be site specific, a matter clearly falling within the scope of the arbitration clause. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 245, 635 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-hills-office-service-v-bevona-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack