Herman v. Herman

• Citation: 13 N.Y.S.3d 841 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06346,130 A.D.3d 1030
• Decision Date: 29 July 2015
• Docket Number: 2012-11008
• Parties: In the Matter of Joel HERMAN, appellant, v. Rochel HERMAN, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

130 A.D.3d 1030
13 N.Y.S.3d 841 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06346

In the Matter of Joel HERMAN, appellant
v.
Rochel HERMAN, respondent.

2012-11008

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 29, 2015.

Joel Herman, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Neuhaus & Yacoob, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joel N. Yacoob of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503(a) to compel arbitration and stay a proceeding entitled Matter of Herman v. Herman, pending before the Family Court, Kings County, under Docket No. F–06826–11, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 5, 2012, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘Arbitration is essentially a creature of contract in which the parties themselves charter a private tribunal for the resolution of their disputes and are free to enlarge, restrict, modify, amend or terminate their agreement to arbitrate’ ” (Matter of

13 N.Y.S.3d 842

All Metro Health Care Servs. Inc. v. Edwards, 57 A.D.3d 892, 893, 870 N.Y.S.2d 108, quoting Matter of Instituto De Resseguros Do Brasil v. First State Ins. Co., 221 A.D.2d 266, 266, 634 N.Y.S.2d 79 ; see Matter of Village of Chester v. Local 445, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, 118 A.D.3d 1012, 1012–1013, 988 N.Y.S.2d 652 ). Here, the parties specifically agreed to submit their dispute to the Beth Din Karlsburg of Kollel Bais Talmud L'Horuah (hereinafter the Beth Din). Under the particular circumstances of this case, upon the Beth Din's express recusal therefrom, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see CPLR 7503 ; cf. Rosenberg v. Piller, 116 A.D.3d 1023, 985 N.Y.S.2d 250 ).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.