From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Arbitration Between Meetze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2002
295 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 01-02324

June 14, 2002.

Appeal from an order (denominated order and judgment) of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (McCarthy, J.), entered September 12, 2001, which, inter alia, denied petitioner's application seeking a stay of arbitration.

HISCOCK BARCLAY, LLP, SYRACUSE (JOHN P. DEVENDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

STEVEN B. ALDERMAN, SYRACUSE, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND BURNS, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied the application seeking a stay of arbitration. The 1975 partnership agreement (agreement) between petitioner and Laurence T. Cook contains a broad arbitration clause that covers the instant dispute over insurance proceeds. Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is a "substantial question" whether the parties to the agreement continued to deem the agreement in effect even after they decided to conduct their businesses in corporate form, and thus the issue whether the agreement to arbitrate remains valid is for the arbitrator to determine ( Schenkers Intl. Forwarders v. Meyer, 164 A.D.2d 541, 544, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 852; see Ballon Stoll Bader Nadler v. Kaufman, 210 A.D.2d 29; see also Matter of Cassone, 63 N.Y.2d 756, 758-759).


Summaries of

Matter of Arbitration Between Meetze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2002
295 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Matter of Arbitration Between Meetze

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN JACK E. MEETZE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 747

Citing Cases

Shah v. Monpat Constr., Inc.

Indeed, had the issue been raised in the Supreme Court, Monpat may have been able to present evidence that it…

Rockwood Automatic Mach., Inc. v. Lear Corp.

In any event, the issue is governed by the FAA, not state law. The foregoing analysis also does not run afoul…