Rubin v. Milo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Milo

214 A.D.2d 415, 625 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350

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

DecidedApril 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 415 (Rubin v. Milo) 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

Rubin v. Milo, 214 A.D.2d 415, 625 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1994, which in an action on a promissory note pursuant to CPLR 3213, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the note, which named plaintiff as a payee and stated that it "emanate[d]” from the simultaneously executed contract in which plaintiffs decedent, her husband, sold his dental practice to defendants, and the contract, which did not name plaintiff as a party, provided that the payment obligation was to be secured by a promissory note, and also provided for arbitration to resolve any disputes arising under the contract, must be read together (see, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Hixon, 124 AD2d 488), and require arbitration of the instant dispute. While the arbitration clause does not affect plaintiffs individual right to payment under the note, it does govern the method of collection and forum for resolving disputes. We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1994, which in an action on a promissory note pursuant to CPLR 3213, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the note, which named plaintiff as a payee and stated that it "emanate[d]” from the simultaneously executed contract in which plaintiffs decedent, her husband, sold his dental practice to defendants, and the contract, which did not name plaintiff as a party, provided that the payment obligation was to be secured by a promissory note, and also provided for arbitration to resolve any disputes arising under the contract, must be read together (see, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Hixon, 124 AD2d 488), and require arbitration of the instant dispute. While the arbitration clause does not affect plaintiffs individual right to payment under the note, it does govern the method of collection and forum for resolving disputes. We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 415, 625 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-milo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack