Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, the application to confirm the award is denied, and the petition is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the proceeding (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
In order for the parties to an arbitration agreement to avail themselves of the protections of CPLR article 75, they must comply with the writing requirement of CPLR 7501 (see, Matter of Hellman [Wolbrom], 31 A.D.2d 477; Meisels v Uhr, 145 Misc.2d 571, 577). Since the record before this court does not contain a writing sufficient to constitute a binding agreement to arbitrate under CPLR 7501 (see, Matter of Marlene Indus. Corp. [Carnac Textiles], 45 N.Y.2d 327, 333; Castagna Sons v Michel Plumbing, 94 A.D.2d 736, affd 61 N.Y.2d 841; Meisels v Uhr, supra), the provisions of CPLR article 75 are inapplicable to the proceeding in which the parties participated before the rabbinical tribunal, and the Supreme Court erred in enforcing the award (see, CPLR 7501; Matter of Hellman [Wolbrom], supra; Meisels v Uhr, supra). Brown, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.