From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wagner Acquisition Corp. v. Giove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In Wagner Acquisition Corp. v. Giove, (250 A.D.2d 857 [2nd Dept. 1998]), the decision by the lower court to deny a request for preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 [c] was reversed by the appellate court.

Summary of this case from International Union of Operating Engineers v. City of Niagara Falls

Opinion

May 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 26, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 29, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 29, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 (c) is granted, the respondents' motion for a permanent stay of arbitration is denied, the petitioner's cross motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the order dated March 26, 1997, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioner is awarded one bill of costs.

The petitioner correctly argues that the Supreme Court's concern should have merely been whether the parties made a valid agreement to arbitrate and not whether the contract as a whole was unenforceable (see, In formation Sciences v. Mohawk Data Science Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 918; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], 38 N.Y.2d 570; Brown v. Bussey, 245 A.D.2d 255; Matter of Jeffries v. Ross, 238 A.D.2d 288; Matter of Fener Realty Co. [Nico Constr. Co.], 182 A.D.2d 436; Stoianoff v. New Am. Lib., 148 A.D.2d 600). Here, we are satisfied that the parties did make such an agreement (see, Matter of. Jeffries v. Ross, supra). Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 (c) (see, Matter of Guarini [Severini], 233 A.D.2d 196).

O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Wagner Acquisition Corp. v. Giove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In Wagner Acquisition Corp. v. Giove, (250 A.D.2d 857 [2nd Dept. 1998]), the decision by the lower court to deny a request for preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 [c] was reversed by the appellate court.

Summary of this case from International Union of Operating Engineers v. City of Niagara Falls
Case details for

Matter of Wagner Acquisition Corp. v. Giove

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WAGNER ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ARTHUR…

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

Date published: May 26, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 455

Citing Cases

Mustaphalli v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

In fact, this Court's concern is limited to whether the parties made a valid agreement to arbitrate and not…

Martinez v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Membership Agreement states that Federal Arbitration Act (Title 9 of the United States…