From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DRA-PO CONSTR. CO., INC. v. L. RISO SONS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent L. Riso Sons Co., Inc.

The plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration, which was made approximately five months after the plaintiff itself had demanded arbitration, and after the plaintiff had participated in the arbitration, was properly denied. Insofar as relevant here, a stay of arbitration is only available to a party "who has not participated in the arbitration and who has not made * * * an application to compel arbitration" (CPLR 7503 [b]). If the arbitrator decides an issue which the plaintiff believes to have been beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction to decide, the plaintiff's proper course is to apply for vacatur of the arbitrator's award (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the remaining issue raised by the plaintiff. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DRA-PO CONSTR. CO., INC. v. L. RISO SONS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

DRA-PO CONSTR. CO., INC. v. L. RISO SONS

Case Details

Full title:DRA-PO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. L. RISO SONS CO., INC., et…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 463

Citing Cases

Matter of Horowitz v. Pitterman

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the…

Kidder Peabody Co v. Marvin

Indeed, Florida courts seem to apply a standard perhaps more rigorous than New York's, measured by the mere…