Case Name: In the Matter of Land of the Free, Inc., Doing Business as Seaford Palace Diner, et al., Appellants, v. Unique Sanitation, Inc., et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1999-06-03
Citations: 93 N.Y.2d 942
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Land of the Free, Inc., Doing Business as Seaford Palace Diner, et al., Appellants, v Unique Sanitation, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 942–943

Head Matter:
[715 NE2d 98, 693 NYS2d 70]
In the Matter of Land of the Free, Inc., Doing Business as Seaford Palace Diner, et al., Appellants, v Unique Sanitation, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Argued April 29, 1999;
decided June 3, 1999
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Hession & Bekoff, Mineola (Andrew Paul Cooper of counsel), for appellants.
Bee, Eisman & Ready, Mineola (Peter A. Bee, Richard P. Ready and Catherine V. Battle of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 7503 (c) requires that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of a demand for arbitration. An untimely application to stay arbitration may, however, be granted if the agreement for which arbitration is sought is facially illegal or if upon facial examination of the agreement, a court may conclude that it would be against public policy to permit arbitration of the issue sought to be arbitrated (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631; Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 NY2d 621).
Here, the trash removal contract between the parties is not facially illegal nor may it be concluded from the face of the contract that it would be against public policy to arbitrate the issue for which arbitration was sought. Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly determined that the arbitration should proceed, inasmuch as the petitioner-appellant's application to stay arbitration was made after expiration of the 20-day time limit set forth in CPLR 7503.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.