Wellstone Mills, LLC v. Dillon Yarn Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wellstone Mills, LLC v. Dillon Yarn Corp.

63 A.D.3d 550, 880 N.Y.S.2d 485

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

DecidedJune 18, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 550 (Wellstone Mills, LLC v. Dillon Yarn 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

Wellstone Mills, LLC v. Dillon Yarn Corp., 63 A.D.3d 550, 880 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 3, 2009, denying respondent’s petition to stay arbitration and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Ques[551]*551tions concerning conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate, such as time limits, are generally for the arbitrator to decide in the absence of a provision to the contrary or a provision that New York law (which provides that some timeliness issues are for the courts) governs both the agreement and its enforcement (Matter of Diamond Waterproofing Sys., Inc. v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 4 NY3d 247, 252 [2005]). Since the contract between the parties did not contain such a provision, this dispute regarding whether the arbitration proceeding was timely commenced and whether the time limit allegedly set forth in the contract is binding upon respondent is reserved for the arbitrator. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30172(U).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 3, 2009, denying respondent’s petition to stay arbitration and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Ques[551]*551tions concerning conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate, such as time limits, are generally for the arbitrator to decide in the absence of a provision to the contrary or a provision that New York law (which provides that some timeliness issues are for the courts) governs both the agreement and its enforcement (Matter of Diamond Waterproofing Sys., Inc. v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 4 NY3d 247, 252 [2005]). Since the contract between the parties did not contain such a provision, this dispute regarding whether the arbitration proceeding was timely commenced and whether the time limit allegedly set forth in the contract is binding upon respondent is reserved for the arbitrator. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30172(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 550, 880 N.Y.S.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellstone-mills-llc-v-dillon-yarn-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack