Opinion
June 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
Under the broad arbitration clause prepared by plaintiff as attorney for all parties herein, the causes of action were properly directed to arbitration by the motion court. There are no public policy considerations involved in this purely personal dispute which would impel a court not to honor the parties' agreement providing for arbitration ( see, Matter of Wertlieb [Greystone Partnerships Group], 165 A.D.2d 644).
As to plaintiff's cross motion, a sufficient question of fact is presented on the issue of continuous representation so as to preclude dismissal of the counterclaims on Statute of Limitations grounds ( see, Weiss v. Manfredi, 83 N.Y.2d 974, 977).
We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ross and Tom, JJ.