New York Court of Appeals, 1983

In re the Arbitration between Initial Trends, Inc.& Campus Outfitter

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 15, 1983

58 N.Y.2d 896; 447 N.E.2d 48; 460 N.Y.S.2d 500; 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2872

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Ferndale Corp. v. Schulman Urban Development Associates (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
Blue Ridge Insurance v. Russo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Arbitration between County of Jefferson & Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n, Local 9100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Nealon v. Novick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Eagle Insurance v. Kahan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re the Arbitration between McGreevy and Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed. In the absence of a Federal statute governing method of service of a demand for arbitration, CPLR *8987503 (subd [c]), which is consistent with the Federally created right to arbitrate (US Code, tit 9), is applied to these interstate transactions. The consequence of failure to strictly comply with the provisions of CPLR 7503 (subd [c]) in serving a demand for arbitration is to toll the time limit on an application to stay arbitration (Matter of Board of Educ. v Palmyra-Macedon Faculty Assn., 78 AD2d 765, mot for lv to app den 53 NY2d 603). A stay of arbitration on the ground that demand was ineffectual is, therefore, improper in a case such as this where petitioner obviously had actual notice of the demand to arbitrate and an opportunity, via this proceeding to stay arbitration, to judicially review its threshold objections to arbitrability.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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