From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

237 Park Inv. v. J. Walter Thompson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 25, 2004
5 A.D.3d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3181.

Decided March 25, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the petition to stay arbitration and dismissed this proceeding with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Jay B. Solomon, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Marc J. Rachman, for Respondent-Respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.


Questions of procedural arbitrability were for the arbitrator to determine ( see Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79). The arbitration also met the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 7502[b]), which was a threshold issue to be determined by the court ( see Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193, 202).

Furthermore, Article 4.01(a) of the lease made arbitrable any dispute as to the building assessment, with the arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy with respect to real estate tax overcharges.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

237 Park Inv. v. J. Walter Thompson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 25, 2004
5 A.D.3d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

237 Park Inv. v. J. Walter Thompson Co.

Case Details

Full title:237 PARK INVESTORS, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. WALTER THOMPSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 25, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 540

Citing Cases

Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd. v. Newedge USA, LLC

That decision has not been appealed and is the law of the case ( see Port Auth. v Office of the Contract…

Escava v. Escava

In support of this claim, Seymour alleges that he and his wife received some checks reflecting proceeds…