Tal Tours (1996), Inc. v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tal Tours (1996), Inc. v. Goldstein

34 A.D.3d 786, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 786 (Tal Tours (1996), Inc. v. Goldstein) 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

Tal Tours (1996), Inc. v. Goldstein, 34 A.D.3d 786, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated October 7, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration by a “zebla” proceeding and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel arbitration by a proceeding conducted by the Beth Din of America.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [787]*787by a procedure in which each side chooses an arbitrator, and the two chosen arbitrators agree on a third arbitrator, known as a “zebla” proceeding, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel arbitration by a proceeding conducted by the Beth Din of America. We perceive no basis upon which to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated October 7, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration by a “zebla” proceeding and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel arbitration by a proceeding conducted by the Beth Din of America.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [787]*787by a procedure in which each side chooses an arbitrator, and the two chosen arbitrators agree on a third arbitrator, known as a “zebla” proceeding, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel arbitration by a proceeding conducted by the Beth Din of America. We perceive no basis upon which to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 786, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tal-tours-1996-inc-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack