University at Albany, SUNY.
Her motion was denied by decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 20, 2004, and the parties proceeded to arbitration. On or about October 30, 2003, the plaintiff amended his verified complaint in the instant action to add a cause of action for specific performance of the agreement to arbitrate and moved to compel arbitration by order to show cause dated December 1, 2003. He commenced an action seeking a judicial determination of the controversy and only sought arbitration after efforts at settlement failed. Penny Hart.
Co. v Nester, 90 NY2d 255, 264 [1997]).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 22, 2004, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated March 18, 2004, made upon reargument; and it is further, The Court of Appeals has held that where a party seeks to compel arbitration and at the same time seeks protective relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration, there is no waiver of arbitration (see Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982]; Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273 [1985]).
Co. v Sauro, 251 AD2d 509 [1998]; Matter of Hawthorne Dev. United States In opposition, counsel for Penny Hart noted that "there is a fundamental contradiction in bringing an action for judicial resolution of a host of grievances" and seeking arbitration in the same action. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. The Court of Appeals has held that where a party seeks to compel arbitration and at the same time seeks protective relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration, there is no waiver of arbitration (see Preiss/Breismeister Architects v Westin Hotel Co.-Plaza Hotel Div., 56 NY2d 787, 789 [1982]; Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 NY2d 261, 273 [1985]). TSC>Direct Auto Insurance & Homeowners Insurance Call 800-564-6669 - New York City, Long Island & Westchester County. Just type ‘@’ as the first character in the text box, choose your recipient, and type your message. Penny Hart Owner, TSC>Direct. Indicates an imbalance. SELLER: Penny Hart (formerly owned by Frank Sinatra)LOCATION: New York City, NYPRICE: $7,700,000SIZE: 3,200 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 4 full and 2 half …
On or about October 30, 2003, the plaintiff amended his verified complaint in the instant action to add a cause of action for specific performance of the agreement to arbitrate and moved to compel arbitration by order to show cause dated December 1, 2003. Penny Hart appealed and moved to stay arbitration. 2005 NY Slip Op 04000 [18 AD3d 610] [*2]. Greater Portsmouth Area. In October 2003, the plaintiff and Penny Hart, as shareholders of TSC, met and were unable to settle their differences. If you'd like to send a Brief to just one of your colleagues you can send a Private Brief. In response, Penny Hart agreed to provide the plaintiff with a copy of TSC's by-laws and agreed to adjourn the shareholders' meeting. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration should have been denied. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, and, inter alia, adhered to that determination upon reargument. Indicates your referral relationship is balanced,
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 to compel the defendant Penny Fern Hart to account for her alleged misconduct in the management of the defendant Tri-State Consumer, Inc., to enjoin Penny Fern Hart from further participation in the management of Tri-State Consumer, Inc., to compel the defendants to permit the plaintiff to inspect the books and records of the defendant Tri-State Consumer, Inc., and for specific performance of an agreement to arbitrate disputes between the plaintiff and Penny Fern Hart, Penny Fern Hart appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J. This action involves a dispute between plaintiff Penny F. Hart and defendant Thomas V. Cappa, who were lovers before they broke off their romantic relationship in or about 2012. ), dated January 22, 2004, which granted the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and directed a hearing to determine whether the arbitrator was impartial and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated March 18, 2004, as granted the plaintiff's motion for reargument and, upon reargument by the plaintiff and Penny Fern Hart, adhered to so much of the original determination as granted the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and vacated so much of the order dated January 22, 2004, as directed a hearing to determine whether the arbitrator was impartial.
Penny Hart Senior Account Executive - Select Business at The Buckner Company. Simply type a message in the text box, click the orange POST button, and your message will immediately appear in the Brief queue of all of your colleagues. Further, the plaintiff did more than seek protective relief to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. He commenced an action seeking a judicial determination of the controversy and only sought arbitration after efforts at settlement failed. Hart v Tri-State Consumer, Inc. 575 Jericho Turnpike Appellate Division, Second Department Our Founder and CEO, Penny Hart, envisioned an auto insurance company that was personalized and affordable for New Yorkers. By letter dated October 20, 2003, served by Facsimile and first-class mail, the plaintiff for the first time contended that the controversy was subject to arbitration pursuant to an agreement dated April 19, 1990, and demanded arbitration. Years in Business: 25. By letter dated October 24, 2003, Penny Hart's counsel stated that "your position regarding arbitration is at odds with the fact that your client has already commenced a lawsuit in state court.". Ordered that the order dated March 18, 2004, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, the order dated January 22, 2004, is vacated, and the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration is denied; and it is further.
Sync Briefs with Facebook: Click the radio button next to the Facebook icon (Under the Brief box) to have your Brief also posted to Facebook.
TSC Direct InsuramceHomeowner, Auto & Business Insurance.
You can also attach a file such as a picture or document to your Brief by clicking Attach File and selecting the file from your computer. The plaintiff did not seek arbitration until after he had commenced the instant action and settlement negotiations were unsuccessful. Map This Locale. The plaintiff did not seek arbitration until after he had commenced the instant action and settlement negotiations were unsuccessful.
By commencing an action at law involving arbitrable issues, [*3]the plaintiff waived whatever right he had to arbitration (see Matter of Worcester Ins.
By letter dated October 20, 2003, served by Facsimile and first-class mail, the plaintiff for the first time contended that the controversy was subject to arbitration pursuant to an agreement dated April 19, 1990, and demanded arbitration. In October 2003, the plaintiff and Penny Hart, as shareholders of TSC, met and were unable to settle their differences. In October 2003, the plaintiff and Penny Hart, as shareholders of TSC, met and were unable to settle their differences. Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 18, 2004, as granted the plaintiff's motion for reargument is dismissed as academic; and it is further.
On or about September 5, 2003, the plaintiff commenced an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 to compel the defendant Penny Fern Hart (hereinafter Penny Hart) to account for her alleged misconduct in the management of the defendant Tri-State Consumer, Inc. (hereinafter TSC), to enjoin Penny Hart from further participation in the management of TSC, to compel the defendants to permit the plaintiff to inspect the books and records of TSC, and to enjoin a meeting of the shareholders of TSC consisting of the plaintiff and Penny Hart until Penny Hart provided the plaintiff with a copy of the by-laws. v Gribin, 128 AD2d 874 [1987]). On or about September 5, 2003, the plaintiff commenced an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 to compel the defendant Penny Fern Hart (hereinafter Penny Hart) to account for her alleged misconduct in the management of the defendant Tri-State Consumer, Inc. (hereinafter TSC), to enjoin Penny Hart from further participation in the management of TSC, to compel the defendants to permit the plaintiff to inspect the books and records of TSC, and to enjoin a meeting of the shareholders of TSC consisting of the plaintiff and Penny Hart until Penny Hart provided the plaintiff with a copy of the by-laws.