Opinion
April 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
The IAS Court correctly held that the note, which named plaintiff as a payee and stated that it "emanate[d]" from the simultaneously executed contract in which plaintiff's decedent, her husband, sold his dental practice to defendants, and the contract, which did not name plaintiff as a party, provided that the payment obligation was to be secured by a promissory note, and also provided for arbitration to resolve any disputes arising under the contract, must be read together (see, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Hixon, 124 A.D.2d 488), and require arbitration of the instant dispute. While the arbitration clause does not affect plaintiff's individual right to payment under the note, it does govern the method of collection and forum for resolving disputes. We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.