Opinion
Argued March 29, 1977
Decided May 3, 1977
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, SIDNEY H. ASCH, J.
Stephen P.H. Rachlis, Harold Manheim, Robert Braunschweig and Franz S. Leichter for appellants.
Arnold Buffum Lovell, Arnold Chase, Edward Matthew Kabak and Richard H. Altabef for appellants.
MEMORANDUM. Order affirmed.
The conclusory allegations contained in the petition and moving papers are insufficient to demonstrate that there is a "substantial question of the existence of a `valid agreement' to arbitrate" (Durst v Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 41, affd on opn below 17 N.Y.2d 445). Specifically, petitioners do not spell out evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue in support of their claim that they were induced to enter into the partnership agreement or to agree to the arbitration clause contained within it as a result of fraud or duress (8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 7503.23, p 75-83; see Moseley v Electronic Facilities, 374 U.S. 167; Matter of Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 A.D.2d 280, app dsmd 32 N.Y.2d 832). Nor does the agreement, on its face, constitute an unlawful restraint of trade (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 36 N.Y.2d 945, 947). Hence, the application to stay arbitration was properly denied.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.