Durst v. Abrash
| Decision Date | 30 December 1965 |
| Citation | 213 N.E.2d 887,266 N.Y.S.2d 806,17 N.Y.2d 445 |
| Parties | , 213 N.E.2d 887 Joseph DURST, Respondent, v. Anne M. ABRASH, as Trustee, etc., Appellant, and Paskus, Gordon and Hyman, a Partnership, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 22 A.D.2d 39, 253 N.Y.S.2d 351.
Action was brought for declaratory judgment that agreements between plaintiff and defendant trustee were usurious and void. The defendant trustee made a motion to compel arbitration.
The agreements recited that plaintiff sold 10,000 shares of stock of corporation to defendant trustee for $3 a share in November, 1962 and that plaintiff was to repurchase the shares on March 4, 1964 for $5.40 a share, and that defendant trustee could keep dividends declared on the shares between December 3, 1962 and March 4, 1964. The parties on the same day executed a separate agreement that any dispute arising under or pursuant to the other agreements was to be submitted to arbitration. The plaintiff contended that the transaction evidenced by the agreements was not a sale of stock but a usurious loan.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Joseph A. Sarafite, J., entered an order adverse to the defendant trustee, and the defendant trustee appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order affirming the order of the Special Term and cerified the question: 'Was the order of Special Term denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration pending the trial of the issues of whether the written agreements are usurious and invalid correct?'
The defendant trustee appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of the Appellate Division.
Hahn, Hessen, Margolis & Ryan, New York City (Jules J. L. Hessen and Warren M. Weitzman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Baar, Bennett & Fullen, New York City (Milton I. Newman and Paul R. Scott, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs upon the authority of the majority opinion at the Appellate Division. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Rothko
...Estates, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 660, 278 N.Y.S.2d 853, 225 N.E.2d 547; Durst v. Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 253 N.Y.S.2d 351, aff'd 17 N.Y.2d 445, 266 N.Y.S.2d 806, 213 N.E.2d 887; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac. §§ 7501.24, 7501.25). Many parties to this litigation are not parties to the arbitra......
-
U.S. v. Stein
...Dept.1964) (arbitration clause in usurious agreement unenforceable as against public policy), aff'd on opinion below, 17 N.Y.2d 445, 266 N.Y.S.2d 806, 213 N.E.2d 887 (1965). The KPMG Defendants' contention that enforcement here of any otherwise applicable arbitration clauses would be agains......
-
Janmort Leas., Inc. v. Econo-Car Intern.
...are ordinarily deemed nonarbitrable. See, e. g., Durst v. Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 253 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1st Dep't 1964) (Breitel, J.), aff'd, 17 N.Y.2d 445, 266 N.Y. S.2d 806, 213 N.E.2d 887 (1965). This claim, however, is based on charges assessed by ECI for late payment of periodic billings pur......
-
Weinrott v. Carp
...referred to concerns a valid agreement to arbitrate (Durst v. Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 41, 253 N.Y.S.2d 351, 353, affd.17 N.Y.2d 445, 266 N.Y.S.2d 806, 213 N.E.2d 887; Housekeeper v. Lourie, 39 A.D.2d 280, 283, 284, 333 N.Y.S.2d 932, 936, 937, Supra). Since we now hold that an arbitration prov......