Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Naval v. American Arbitration Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 5, 2011

83 A.D.3d 423; 919 N.Y.S.2d 339

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

New York Ctr. for Esthetic & Laser Dentistry v. VSLP United LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v. Globe Alumni Student Assistance Assn., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Elkin v. Labis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Elkin v. Labis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Maksymowicz v. Weisman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Maksymowicz v. Weisman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kalyanaram v. New York Institute of Technology (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Nall v. Estate of Powell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Nall v. Estate of Powell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Mitchell v. Abrams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered February 1, 2010, which declined to sign an order to show cause, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

“No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause” (Nova v Jerome Cluster 3, LLC, 46 AD3d 292, 293 [2007]). In any event, the court properly declined to sign the order to show cause on the ground that the petition is untimely, having been filed more than 90 days after delivery of the arbitra*424tion award to petitioner (see CPLR 7511 [a]). Petitioner has failed to show a basis for tolling under CPLR 208 (see Karczewicz v New York City Tr. Auth., 244 AD2d 285, 285 [1997]). Petitioner’s failure to name the City University of New York as a respondent is also fatal to his claim (see CPLR 1001 [a]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.