Zanger v. Iberti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zanger v. Iberti

272 A.D.2d 253, 709 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5907

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

DecidedMay 25, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 253 (Zanger v. Iberti) 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

Zanger v. Iberti, 272 A.D.2d 253, 709 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, [254]*254New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered, on or about January 7, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioners’ motion to renew their application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Regardless of whether petitioners’ motion should have been styled as one to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) rather than one to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2), it was properly denied. The only “new” fact tendered by petitioners, namely, a recent California judgment, was already before the IAS Court on the original motion, as embodied in the California court’s interlocutory orders, of which the IAS Court had already taken notice. In view of the California court’s express declaration that the proceedings before it did not involve the claim that respondent now seeks to arbitrate, no basis exists for staying that arbitration. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, [254]*254New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered, on or about January 7, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioners’ motion to renew their application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Regardless of whether petitioners’ motion should have been styled as one to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) rather than one to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2), it was properly denied. The only “new” fact tendered by petitioners, namely, a recent California judgment, was already before the IAS Court on the original motion, as embodied in the California court’s interlocutory orders, of which the IAS Court had already taken notice. In view of the California court’s express declaration that the proceedings before it did not involve the claim that respondent now seeks to arbitrate, no basis exists for staying that arbitration. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 253, 709 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zanger-v-iberti-nyappdiv-2000.