Patestides v. Restaurant Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patestides v. Restaurant Development Corp.

23 A.D.2d 547, 256 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 547 (Patestides v. Restaurant Development 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

Patestides v. Restaurant Development Corp., 23 A.D.2d 547, 256 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 1, 1964, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action as insufficient under the Statute of Frauds or for a stay of such action pending arbitration, unanimously modified on the law to stay said cause of action and remit it to -arbitration, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs -or disbursements to either party. In his first cause of action plaintiff does not seek to enforce the alleged oral agreement, which of course the Statute of Frauds might bar, hut he seeks to have redress against defendants’ alleged fraud, and to he restored to his position prior to the alleged oral agreement and fraud. For such relief, the complaint is sufficient. However, in the original written agreement between the plaintiff and the individual defendant, dated June 21, 1963, concerning this venture, it was agreed that any disputes arising between them “relating to this agreement * *" [548]*548shall be settled by arbitration ”. The first cause of action relates to such agreement, and the issues therein must therefore be arbitrated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 1, 1964, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action as insufficient under the Statute of Frauds or for a stay of such action pending arbitration, unanimously modified on the law to stay said cause of action and remit it to -arbitration, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs -or disbursements to either party. In his first cause of action plaintiff does not seek to enforce the alleged oral agreement, which of course the Statute of Frauds might bar, hut he seeks to have redress against defendants’ alleged fraud, and to he restored to his position prior to the alleged oral agreement and fraud. For such relief, the complaint is sufficient. However, in the original written agreement between the plaintiff and the individual defendant, dated June 21, 1963, concerning this venture, it was agreed that any disputes arising between them “relating to this agreement * *" [548]*548shall be settled by arbitration ”. The first cause of action relates to such agreement, and the issues therein must therefore be arbitrated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 547, 256 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patestides-v-restaurant-development-corp-nyappdiv-1965.