You are here: / / RESPONDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE PORTION OF THE ARBITRATION WHICH...
, ,

RESPONDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE PORTION OF THE ARBITRATION WHICH DEALT WITH THE USE OF ESCROW FUNDS TO REPAIR CONDOMINIUM SWIMMING POOLS WAIVED ANY CHALLENGE TO THE ARBITRABILITY OF THE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined respondents waived the ability to challenge the arbitrability of damage to swimming pools in this action seeking to use escrow funds for condominium repairs. The swimming pools were not on the “punch list” of items to be repaired using the escrow funds. But respondent Katz participated in the portion of the arbitration which focused on the repair of the pools:

It is well settled that “[a] party who actively participates in arbitration without seeking a stay pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) waives the right to a judicial determination of the arbitrability of the dispute” … . There is no dispute that Katz participated in the first three arbitration hearings, at the second of which he attempted to submit Fuller’s report to address the issue regarding the swimming pools and, after the rejection of the report, he orally argued his position. The record is devoid of any request for a stay of any kind. Thus, Katz’s participation foreclosed respondents’ attack on the arbitrability of the pool repairs … . Matter of Kohn (Waverly Homes Dev. LLC), 2022 NY Slip Op 02177, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: A party’s participation in the arbitration of an issue waives any right to a judicial determination the issue was not arbitrable.

You might also like
MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​
EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Waterway Bordered by Private Land Deemed “Navigable-in-Fact”—Owners of the Land Cannot Prohibit Public Use of the Waterway
DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).
Proper Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Explained
“Mystery Shopper” Not an Employee

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE... PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE,...