Opinion
May 1, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.),
The motion court, in its 1994 order, properly determined that appellant had no remedy at law because the parties had expressly intended arbitration to be the sole forum for resolution of disputes arising under their agreement ( see, Matter of Herrero [Tenth Ave. Fine Foods], 168 A.D.2d 343). Appellant was still obliged to bring arbitration against the correct parties in a timely fashion. Arbitration against the individual petitioner was properly stayed because she was not a party to the arbitration agreement ( see, Matter of First Winthrop Props. [Carney], 177 A.D.2d 282). Arbitration against the proprietor's estate was properly stayed as time-barred (CPLR 7502[b]) under the law of Connecticut, chosen by the parties, since the demand for arbitration in September of 1995 was more than two years after the post-death accrual of appellant's causes of action (Conn Gen Stat § 45a-375[d]). We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.