General
In the Matter of Tila Azeem, Appellant, v. David James Murphy, Respondent
139 A.D.3d 61030 N.Y.S.3d 821·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2016·NY
Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Tila Azeem, Appellant, v David James Murphy, Respondent.
[30 NYS3d 821]
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2015, which declined to sign petitioner’s order to show cause seeking a stay of an arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
The court’s order declining to sign petitioner’s order to show cause is not appealable (M & J Trimming v Kew Mgt. Corp., 254 AD2d 21 [1st Dept 1998]; see also McKanic v Amigos del Museo del Barrio, 74 AD3d 639 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 849 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011], rearg denied 17 NY3d 856 [2011]; CPLR 5701 [a] [2]).
Even if the matter were properly before us, we would find that petitioner is not entitled to a stay of the pending arbitration between the parties (see CPLR 7503 [b]; 7502 [b]). The amended statement of claim filed in the arbitration is timely, since it simply provides more details to support the timely original claim (see Robinson v Canniff, 22 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2005]).
Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.