Case Name: In the Matter of Tila Azeem, Appellant, v. David James Murphy, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-05-26
Citations: 139 A.D.3d 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Tila Azeem, Appellant, v David James Murphy, Respondent.
Judges: Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 610–610

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Tila Azeem, Appellant, v David James Murphy, Respondent.
[30 NYS3d 821]

Opinion:
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.