Morrow, Matter of
| Decision Date | 10 December 1987 |
| Citation | 522 N.Y.S.2d 333,135 A.D.2d 931 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Arbitration between Gerald L. MORROW, Respondent, and Paragon Enterprises, Ltd., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William M. Burke, Troy, for appellant.
McGinn Law Firm, P.C. (Arthur F. McGinn, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MAIN, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered November 24, 1986 in Albany County, which granted petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award.
In 1981, Gerald L. Morrow sold his food brokerage business to Paragon Enterprises, Ltd. As part of the consideration for the sale, Paragon contracted to employ Morrow in the business. The contract contained an agreement requiring the parties to submit disputes to arbitration. Differences developed and, in January 1986, Morrow commenced an arbitration proceeding. In March 1986, Paragon countered with an action commenced in Supreme Court in which it contended that Morrow had failed to render substantial performance under the terms of the agreement. Paragon then made a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding. Paragon contended that the dispute between the parties included matters which were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Morrow opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order compelling arbitration.
In May 1986, Supreme Court denied Paragon's motion to stay the arbitration and granted Morrow's motion to compel arbitration. Paragon filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect its appeal. The dispute proceeded to arbitration where an award was ultimately rendered in favor of Morrow. Morrow's application to confirm the award was granted and a judgment was entered upon the confirmation of the award. It is from this judgment which Paragon appeals.
Paragon contends that the arbitration proceeding should have been stayed. This contention, which essentially seeks review of Supreme Court's May 1986 order, is not properly before this court. The scope of appellate review from a final judgment includes any nonfinal judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; see, Hurd v. Lis, 126 A.D.2d 163, 166, 513 N.Y.S.2d 278). The Court of Appeals has held that an order granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration is a final order (Flanagan v. Prudential-Bache Sec., 67 N.Y.2d 500, 505 n. 2, 504...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barone v. Haskins
...Ins. Co. [Schlueter] [appeal No. 2], 267 A.D.2d 1098, 1099, 701 N.Y.S.2d 682 [4th Dept. 1999] ; Matter of Morrow [Paragon Enters.] , 135 A.D.2d 931, 932, 522 N.Y.S.2d 333 [3d Dept. 1987] ). Consequently, the only contentions properly before us are those relating to the October 2019 order. C......
-
Barnes (Council 82, AFSCME on Behalf of Monroe), Matter of
...appeal from the judgment confirming the arbitration award (see, id., at 826, 652 N.Y.S.2d 383; see also, Matter of Morrow [Paragon Enters.], 135 A.D.2d 931, 932, 522 N.Y.S.2d 333), we decline to review it. As to petitioner's claim that the award was irrational because the arbitrator misstat......
-
Barnes (Council 82, AFSCME, on Behalf of Monroe), Matter of
...proceeding to confirm or vacate the arbitration award which resolves the merits of the dispute (see, Matter of Morrow [Paragon Enters.], 135 A.D.2d 931, 522 N.Y.S.2d 333). We conclude, therefore, that there are no unusual circumstances which would warrant departure from the rules ordinarily......
-
Sanders Construction v. Becker
...within the scope of review of the instant appeal from the subsequent judgment confirming the arbitration award (see, Matter of Morrow [Paragon Enters.], 135 A.D.2d 931, citing Flanagan v Prudential-Bache Sec., 67 N.Y.2d 500, 505, n2, cert denied 479 US 931). Because the public policy issue ......