From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Resnick v. Serlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1986
119 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 28, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), entered March 1, 1985, which denied the application.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Although we uphold Special Term's order which denied the petitioner's application to stay arbitration, we do so for reasons different from those advanced by Special Term. The court should not have passed upon the issue of whether the instant arbitration proceeding was barred on the ground of res judicata by the parties' prior arbitration award. Once it has been determined that the claim sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause in question, and that the arbitration of such a dispute is not against the public policy of this State, any further judicial inquiry is foreclosed and all remaining issues, including the res judicata effect of a prior award, are within the exclusive province of the arbitrator to resolve (Board of Educ. v. Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 N.Y.2d 812; Matter of Board of Educ. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 A.D.2d 411, 412, affd 64 N.Y.2d 822). Rubin, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Resnick v. Serlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1986
119 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Resnick v. Serlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID RESNICK, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE SERLIN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 28, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Rabinovich v. Shchegol

Defendant's motion to stay arbitration of an issue arising in this action on the ground that the issue had…

Progressive v. Sentry Ins. Co.

rd in favor of Sentry ( see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). It was within the arbitrator's authority to determine…