Rabinovich v. Shchegol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabinovich v. Shchegol

251 A.D.2d 25, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408

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

DecidedJune 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 25 (Rabinovich v. Shchegol) 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

Rabinovich v. Shchegol, 251 A.D.2d 25, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 11, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, denied defendant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s motion to stay arbitration of an issue arising in this action on the ground that the issue had been determined in an earlier arbitration between the parties was properly denied. Absent a showing that arbitration of the issue would violate the expressed public policy of the State, “any remaining questions, including whether a prior award constitutes a bar to the relief sought, are within the exclusive province of the arbitrator to resolve” (Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812, 813; see, Matter of Port Auth. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 225 AD2d 503; Matter of Resnick v Serlin, 119 AD2d 825). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 11, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, denied defendant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s motion to stay arbitration of an issue arising in this action on the ground that the issue had been determined in an earlier arbitration between the parties was properly denied. Absent a showing that arbitration of the issue would violate the expressed public policy of the State, “any remaining questions, including whether a prior award constitutes a bar to the relief sought, are within the exclusive province of the arbitrator to resolve” (Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812, 813; see, Matter of Port Auth. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 225 AD2d 503; Matter of Resnick v Serlin, 119 AD2d 825). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 25, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinovich-v-shchegol-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack