New York Court of Appeals, 1999

MATTER OF LAND OF THE FREE, INC. v. Unique Sanitation, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 3, 1999 · Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt Concur

715 N.E.2d 98; 93 N.Y.2d 942; 693 N.Y.S.2d 70; 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1208 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Urban (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Hermitage Insurance v. Escobar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Liberty Mutual Ins. v. Zacharoudis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Metlife Auto & Home v. Zampino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v. Doyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Standard Fire Insurance v. Mouchette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Siegel v. Landy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Baronoff v. Kean Development Co. (New York Supreme Court 2006)
In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P.C. v. Abramovitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 7503 (c) requires that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of a demand for arbitration. An untimely application to stay arbitration may, however, be granted if the agreement for which arbitration is sought is facially illegal or if upon facial examination of the agreement, a court may conclude that it would be against public policy to permit arbitration of the issue sought to be arbitrated (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631; Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 NY2d 621).

Here, the trash removal contract between the parties is not facially illegal nor may it be concluded from the face of the contract that it would be against public policy to arbitrate the issue for which arbitration was sought. Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly determined that the arbitration should proceed, inasmuch as the petitioner-appellant’s application to stay arbitration was made after expiration of the 20-day time limit set forth in CPLR 7503.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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