Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Griesenbeck
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
The order should be affirmed, with costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division. We would- only add that an order, such as the one before us, which directs arbitration is a final order in a special proceeding and appealable as such to this court. (See Matter of Wilaka Constr. Co. [New York City Housing Auth.], 17 N Y 2d 195, 204.) The mere fact that this order was made on a motion in a pending action does not impair its finality. (See Marshall Ray Corp. v. Haedke & Co., 16 N Y 2d 967; Agress v. Turkmenilli, 303 N. Y. 797, 799; Gang v. Gang, 253 N. Y. 356, 358.) To the extent…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gang v. GangNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Agress v. TurkmenilliNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Thos. Wolstenholme Co. v. Ria Herlinger Fabrics, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
3Cited by12 opinions
- Flanagan v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Horsey v. HorseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. v. Evansville Teachers Ass'nIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
- Albright v. Edward D. Jones & Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991
- Walters v. FullwoodDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.