Sweedler v. DSJS, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweedler v. DSJS, Inc.

111 A.D.3d 416, 974 N.Y.S.2d 247

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 416 (Sweedler v. DSJS, Inc.) 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

Sweedler v. DSJS, Inc., 111 A.D.3d 416, 974 N.Y.S.2d 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 23, 2013, which, inter alia, denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners failed to raise an issue of fact to justify a stay of the arbitration provided for in the parties’ Commission Agreement (see Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Cos. [Pouncy], 120 AD2d 382 [1st Dept 1986]). Indeed, the petition is predicated solely on the fact that petitioners are not signatories to the agreement. By its own terms, the agreement is binding upon the signatory, Windpost Apparel Group, LLC “and all of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions.” The evidence of petitioners’ relationship with Windpost supports the determination dismissing the petition. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 23, 2013, which, inter alia, denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners failed to raise an issue of fact to justify a stay of the arbitration provided for in the parties’ Commission Agreement (see Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Cos. [Pouncy], 120 AD2d 382 [1st Dept 1986]). Indeed, the petition is predicated solely on the fact that petitioners are not signatories to the agreement. By its own terms, the agreement is binding upon the signatory, Windpost Apparel Group, LLC “and all of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions.” The evidence of petitioners’ relationship with Windpost supports the determination dismissing the petition. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 416, 974 N.Y.S.2d 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweedler-v-dsjs-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack