Wertlieb (Greystone Partnerships Group, Inc.), Matter of
Decision Date | 02 May 1991 |
Citation | 569 N.Y.S.2d 61,165 A.D.2d 644 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Arbitration between Harvey R. WERTLIEB, Petitioner-Respondent, and GREYSTONE PARTNERSHIPS GROUP, INC. For a Judgment Staying the Arbitration Commenced by Greystone Partnerships Group, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Berthold H. Hoeniger, of counsel (Bailey, Marshall & Hoeniger, attorneys), New York City, for respondent-appellant,
Martin J. Jaron, Jr., of counsel (Simoni & Laino and Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress, attorneys), Washington, D.C., for petitioner-respondent.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, ROSS and RUBIN, JJ.
Pursuant to a written contract dated May 9, 1987 entitled "Buyer-Finder Agreement", petitioner Harvey R. Wertlieb engaged the services of Care Facilities Sales Group, Inc., the predecessor of respondent Greystone Partnerships Group, Inc., to assist in petitioner's acquisition of the University Convalescent and Nursing Home, located in Wheaton, Maryland. The contract refers to services to be rendered "as to the availability for purchase, lease or management contract [sic] of the nursing home facility(ies)". It provides for a fee to be paid to respondent upon closing of the transaction and contains a broad arbitration provision for resolution of disputes by the American Arbitration Association in New York City. It is uncontroverted that petitioner ultimately acquired the subject nursing home together with one Marvin Rabovsky, taking title as Arcola Healthcare Associates, Inc. When petitioner refused to pay the fee specified in the contract, respondent demanded arbitration, and petitioner obtained the stay at issue on this appeal.
Petitioner's ground for resisting arbitration is that his acquisition of the nursing home represents the purchase of real property and, at the time of closing, George Naskaris, the principal of both respondent and its predecessor corporation, was not a licensed real estate broker in either New York or Maryland. Therefore, petitioner asserts, it would contravene public policy to permit the arbitration forum to be used to recover compensation which cannot be recovered in an action before the courts of this State (Real Property Law § 442-d).
Supreme Court granted a stay of arbitration, concluding that policy considerations would render any award in respondent's favor unenforceable, whether viewed from the perspective of the law of this State or the law of Maryland. In reaching this conclusion, however, the court necessarily passed upon the merits of the controversy. This was error.
The subject of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings was extensively discussed in this court's opinion in Avon Products, Inc. v. Solow, 150 A.D.2d 236, 541 N.Y.S.2d 406. It was noted that this State favors and encourages arbitration and that the Legislature has assigned a minimal role to the courts in the supervision of arbitration practice (Avon Prods. v. Solow, supra, at 238, 541 N.Y.S.2d 406). The instant matter requires, as in Avon (supra, at 239-240, 541 N.Y.S.2d 406), the balancing of one public policy consideration (licensing) "against what this court has enunciated as 'the strong public policy of encouraging, by judicial noninterference, an unfettered, voluntary arbitration system, where equity should be done' (Matter of Neirs-Folkes, Inc. [Drake Ins. Co.], 75 A.D.2d 787, 788, 428 N.Y.S.2d 248, affd. 53 N.Y.2d 1038, 442 N.Y.S.2d 487, 425 N.E.2d 875)."
Normally, a party to a valid arbitration agreement is required to submit to arbitration and to defer any challenge to the proceeding until an award is rendered, either by way of an application to vacate the award (CPLR 7511; see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 N.Y.2d 190, 198, 344 N.Y.S.2d 848, 298 N.E.2d 42) or in opposition to an application to confirm the award (CPLR 7510; Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354, 386 N.Y.S.2d 831, 353 N.E.2d 793). It is rare for the courts to intervene in arbitration proceedings by amending the award (see, Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., supra, at 358-359, 386 N.Y.S.2d 831, 353 N.E.2d 793) and rarer still to preclude parties from seeking resolution of a dispute in their chosen forum by imposing a stay (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 309, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261). Therefore, a stay of arbitration is reserved for disputes which involve "a public policy of the first magnitude" (Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 N.Y.2d 621, 625, 289 N.Y.S.2d 968, 237 N.E.2d 223 [ ]; see also, Matter of Knickerbocker Agency [Holz], 4 N.Y.2d 245, 173 N.Y.S.2d 602, 149 N.E.2d 885 [ ]; Durst v. Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 253 N.Y.S.2d 351, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 445, 266 N.Y.S.2d 806, 213 N.E.2d 887 [ ]; but cf., Rosenblum v. Steiner, 43 N.Y.2d 896, 403 N.Y.S.2d 716, 374 N.E.2d 610). As stated more recently by the Court of Appeals, judicial intervention in the arbitration process is only appropriate where the relevant public policy considerations (Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 631, 415 N.Y.S.2d 974, 389 N.E.2d 456).
It is impossible to arrive at the decision rendered by Supreme Court without having first resolved the factual question of whether or not the transaction in issue is predominantly a transfer of an interest in real property (Dodge v. Richmond, 5 A.D.2d 593, 596, 173 N.Y.S.2d 786). The answer to this question dictates ultimately the disposition of the merits of the controversy and trespasses upon the exclusive province of the arbitrator (CPLR 7501; Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 N.Y.2d 91, 95, 371 N.Y.S.2d 463, 332 N.E.2d 333; Schenkers Intl. Forwarders v. Meyer, 164...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Sch. Fin. Auth.
...263 A.D.2d 3, 699 N.Y.S.2d 355, 357 (1999) (referring to arbitration as “the proceeding”) (quoting Wertlieb v. Greystone P'ships Grp., 165 A.D.2d 644, 569 N.Y.S.2d 61, 62 (1991)); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7505 (“arbitration proceeding”); FINRA Rule 12405 (referring to Rule 12200 arbitration as “the ......
-
City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n
... ... in writing of (1) the specific subject matter of such interrogation * * * and (2) whether that ... In Matter of Wertlieb (Greystone Partnerships Group), 165 A.D.2d 644, ... award (CPLR 7510; Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354 [386 N.Y.S.2d 831, 353 N.E.2d ... ...
-
PrinceRidge Grp. LLC v. Oppidan, Inc.
...Walden Lisle Assocs., No. 95 Civ. 329 (KMW), 1997 WL 394617, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 1997) (citing Matter of Wertlieb, 165 A.D.2d 644, 569 N.Y.S.2d 61, 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991); Meltzer v. Crescent Leaseholds, Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 142, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd, 442 F.2d 293 (2d C......
-
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Sch. Fin. Auth.
...AFL-CIO, 699 N.Y.S.2d 355, 357 (App. Div. 1999) (referring to arbitration as "the proceeding") (quoting Wertlieb v. Greystone P'ships Grp., 569 N.Y.S.2d 61, 62 (App. Div. 1991)); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7505 ("arbitration proceeding"); FINRA Rule 12405 (referring to Rule 12200 arbitration as "the p......