When Christopher Ross backed out of a deal to purchase a Brooklyn condominium, and sued to get his $47,499 down payment back, the seller insisted that the dispute be arbitrated, as supposedly provided by the parties' contract.
Although the Kings County Supreme Court asked a referee to advise whether or not the dispute was arbitratable, that guy ended up issuing a "one-sentence report," which didn't "expressly address" the issued presented. Yet, the judge still confirmed that report.
Since the referee ignored the question posed by the court, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and sent the case back for "further proceedings."
Did someone miss the point?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Ross v. Kent Ave. Prop. 1-B, LLC