Opinion
June 20, 1967
Order, entered on March 14, 1967, granting petitioners' application to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondents-appellants, application denied and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration. The conclusory and differing allegations contained in the petition, petitioners' reply affidavit and amended petition are insufficient to demonstrate that there is a "substantial question of the existence of a `valid agreement' to arbitrate". ( Durst v. Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 41, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 445.) Petitioners' claim, that the contract, which contains a broad arbitration clause, was induced by fraud, is not supported by the record and is refuted by the documentary evidence contained therein.
Concur — Eager, J.P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and McGivern, JJ.