Opinion
2013-04-26
PALLADIAN HEALTH, LLC and Prism Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. SUMMER STREET CAPITAL II, L.P., Summer Street Capital NYS Fund II, L.P., SSC II Prism Holdings, Inc. and SSC NYS II Prism Holdings, Inc., Defendants–Appellants.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Buffalo (James P. Domagalski of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Dadd, Nelson & Wilkinson, Attica (James M. Wujcik of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Buffalo (James P. Domagalski of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Dadd, Nelson & Wilkinson, Attica (James M. Wujcik of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Contrary to defendants' contention, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew their motion for a stay of arbitration ( see generally Smith v. Cassidy, 93 A.D.3d 1306, 1307, 941 N.Y.S.2d 413). We agree with defendants, however, that upon renewal the court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for a stay of arbitration, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Plaintiffs sought a stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 2201, 3103 and 6301. Inasmuch as a “court's participation in the [arbitration] process is limited to the provisions contained in CPLR article 75” ( Susquehanna Val. Cent. Sch. Dist. at Conklin v. Susquehanna Val. Teachers' Assn., 101 A.D.2d 933, 933, 475 N.Y.S.2d 651,appeal dismissed63 N.Y.2d 610, 484 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 473 N.E.2d 1190;see also Matter of Horowitz v. Pitterman, 178 A.D.2d 939, 939, 578 N.Y.S.2d 320), plaintiffs' reliance on CPLR 2201, 3103 and 6301 in support of their motion is misplaced. Rather, an application to stay arbitration is governed by CPLR 7503(b), which precludes a party that has participated in arbitration from thereafter applying to stay arbitration. Here, plaintiffs participated in the arbitration at issue ( see N.J.R. Assoc. v. Tausend, 19 N.Y.3d 597, 602, 950 N.Y.S.2d 320, 973 N.E.2d 730;see generally Greenwald v. Greenwald, 304 A.D.2d 790, 790–791, 757 N.Y.S.2d 883), and we thus conclude that the court erred in staying that arbitration. In view of our determination, we do not address defendants' remaining contentions.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion upon renewal and vacating the stay of arbitration, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.