From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

44 Lexington Associates, LLC v. Supreme Security Systems, Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 17, 2016
139 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

1167N, 156467/15.

05-17-2016

In re 44 LEXINGTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. SUPREME SECURITY SYSTEMS, LTD., Respondent–Respondent.

  Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Bradley M. Sussman of counsel), for appellant. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Gene W. Rosen of counsel), for respondent.


Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Bradley M. Sussman of counsel), for appellant.

Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Gene W. Rosen of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, GESMER, JJ.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered October 22, 2015, which denied the petition to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on the validity of the 2014 agreement.

Petitioner, who argued that its representative was defrauded into signing, or lacked authority to sign, the contract purportedly signed by the parties in 2014 (2014 Agreement), raised a threshold question regarding the validity of that agreement, which is for the court, rather than an arbitrator, to determine (Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co. ], 51 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 431 N.Y.S.2d 478, 409 N.E.2d 951 [1980] ; M.I.F. Sec. Co. v. Stamm & Co., 94 A.D.2d 211, 213, 463 N.Y.S.2d 771 [1st Dept.1983], affd. in part 60 N.Y.2d 936, 471 N.Y.S.2d 84, 459 N.E.2d 193 [1983] ; see also CPLR 7503[a], [b] ).

To the extent that respondent relies on an arbitration clause in a contract the parties signed in 2009 (2009 Agreement), the 2009 Agreement, even if valid, is unrelated to the instant dispute. Respondent's services, in installing and maintaining additional security equipment in 2014, were rendered in connection with the 2014 Agreement, which is the contract underlying the breach of contract claim that respondent seeks to arbitrate.

Finally, we perceive no basis to dismiss the petition. Petitioner filed the petition within the required 20 days after service of the notice of demand for arbitration, and served the petition and order to show cause by the deadline the court directed in the order to show cause, which the court deemed “good and sufficient service” (see CPLR 306–b, 7503[c] ). Petitioner's mere failure to serve a Notice of Commencement of Action Subject to Mandatory Electronic Filing (22 NYCRR § 202.5–bb [a] ) along with its petition and supporting papers does not warrant dismissal here, as respondent had notice of the electronic filing, electronically filed its cross motion to dismiss, and did not cite any prejudice resulting from this omission.


Summaries of

44 Lexington Associates, LLC v. Supreme Security Systems, Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 17, 2016
139 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

44 Lexington Associates, LLC v. Supreme Security Systems, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:In re 44 Lexington Associates, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Supreme…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 17, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
32 N.Y.S.3d 100
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3834

Citing Cases

Thomas-Barcliff v. McDuffie

In any event, the notice requirement of section 202.5-bb (3), which applies in mandatory electronic filing…

T&M Trusteeship & Mgmt. Servs. Sa v. BDO U.S., LLP

Even if only certain causes of action were subject to the mandatory arbitration provisions of the Engagement…