Yaffe v. Mintz & Fraade, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yaffe v. Mintz & Fraade, P. C.

270 A.D.2d 43, 704 N.Y.S.2d 467, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 43 (Yaffe v. Mintz & Fraade, P. C.) 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

Yaffe v. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., 270 A.D.2d 43, 704 N.Y.S.2d 467, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which granted the petition to consolidate petitioners’ pending arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in consolidating the arbitration proceedings, all of which involved claims that respondent failed to compensate petitioners in accordance with their “of counsel” contracts (see, County of Sullivan v Edward L. Nezalek, Inc., 42 NY2d 123, 128-129). Respondent’s claim that it was substantially prejudiced in the arbitration proceeding by the consolidation order is not properly before the Court as being dehors the record on appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which granted the petition to consolidate petitioners’ pending arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in consolidating the arbitration proceedings, all of which involved claims that respondent failed to compensate petitioners in accordance with their “of counsel” contracts (see, County of Sullivan v Edward L. Nezalek, Inc., 42 NY2d 123, 128-129). Respondent’s claim that it was substantially prejudiced in the arbitration proceeding by the consolidation order is not properly before the Court as being dehors the record on appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 43, 704 N.Y.S.2d 467, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaffe-v-mintz-fraade-p-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack