From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeGroot v. Fotato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1999
261 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 24, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion to strike the defendants' demand for a trial de novo is granted, the order dated March 24, 1998, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of judgment in accordance herewith.

The parties entered into a stipulation wherein they agreed to submit the matter to arbitration pursuant to 22 N.Y.CRR part 28, and to forego any right to a trial de novo. After the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $11,670 plus interest, the defendants filed a demand for a trial. Approximately four years later, no final judgment on the award had been entered by the clerk of the court in accordance with 22 NYCRR 28.11 (b). By order dated March 24, 1998, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' demand for a trial de novo, concluding that the matter was governed by CPLR article 75 rather than 22 N.Y.CRR part 28, and that therefore the plaintiff's motion was untimely pursuant to CPLR 7510. The court adhered to this determination in the order appealed from. We disagree.

Although the amount in controversy in this case exceeds the maximum imposed by 22 NYCRR 28.2 (b), which requires that all civil actions in which the recovery sought is $6,000 or less be submitted to compulsory arbitration, 22 NYCRR 28.2 (c) provides that upon stipulation, any civil action for a sum of money regardless of the amount in controversy may be arbitrated according to the provisions of 22 N.Y.CRR part 28. Having chosen specifically to arbitrate under the provisions of 22 N.Y.CRR part 28, the parties are bound by their agreement and the terms thereof.

Ordinarily, a party may, within 30 days of delivery of an award, demand a trial de novo or move to vacate the award ( 22 NYCRR 28.12, 28.13). Here, however, the parties expressly waived the right to a trial de novo. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should have been granted and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a final judgment on the award.

O'Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeGroot v. Fotato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1999
261 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

DeGroot v. Fotato

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE DeGROOT, Appellant v. THOMAS FOTATO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 24, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 86

Citing Cases

NICHOLLS PARK v. Gillard

In contrast to the situation involving conventional arbitration, plaintiff in the case at bar was not…

Nicholls Park Assoc. v. Gillard

In contrast to the situation involving conventional arbitration, plaintiff in the case at bar was not…