Grynberg v Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP

Grynberg v Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 2008 NY Slip Op 00175 [47 AD3d 447] January 10, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Jack J. Grynberg et al., Appellants,
v
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, et al., Respondents.

—[*1] The Law Offices of Daniel L. Abrams, PLLC, New York City (Daniel L. Abrams of counsel), for appellants.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York City (Moses Silverman of counsel), for Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP and Robert M. Osgood, respondents.

Scotto Law Office, New York City (William J. Dockery of counsel), for Emmet Marvin and Martin, LLP and Kenneth M. Bialo, respondents.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 22, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The amended complaint, which precisely replicates arguments submitted to the arbitrator, was correctly dismissed as a premature collateral attack on the arbitration proceeding (see Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil [Indonesia], 43 NY2d 276, 281 [1977]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the additional grounds urged for affirmance. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.