From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Worthington v. Peacock Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 18, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, 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 order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision, in effect, denying that branch of the appellant's cross motion, which was to stay the action and compel arbitration; and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant that branch of the appellant's cross motion which was to stay the action and compel arbitration ( see, CPLR 7503 [a]; Dazco Heating Air Conditioning Corp. v. C.B.C. Indus., 225 A.D.2d 578; Blatt v. Sochet, 199 A.D.2d 451). However, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction since, the award to which they may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without such provisional relief ( see, CPLR 7502 [c]).

The appellant's remaining contentions lack merit.

Miller, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Worthington v. Peacock Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Worthington v. Peacock Development

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH W. WORTHINGTON et al., Respondents, v. PEACOCK DEVELOPMENT et al.…

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

Date published: May 18, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 780