New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment

Prepare for the New York Law Exam with interactive study tools and comprehensive multiple-choice quizzes. Enhance your understanding with detailed explanations and tips to excel in your NYLE. Get ready to ace your exam!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.

How should Jasmine's application to stay arbitration be treated after she served Cole?

A. The stay of arbitration is void because the parties agreed that neither party could apply for it.
B. Jasmine is precluded from objecting to the stay of arbitration because she did not serve the stay within 15 days after receiving the demand to arbitrate.
C. The court should hear the application to stay arbitration because Jasmine served the stay within 20 days after receiving the demand to arbitrate.
D. The stay of arbitration should be granted because Jasmine's reasons are valid.

The correct answer is: C. The court should hear the application to stay arbitration because Jasmine served the stay within 20 days after receiving the demand to arbitrate.

Jasmine's application to stay arbitration should be considered timely and properly served because she submitted her request within the allowed timeframe of 20 days after receiving the demand to arbitrate. In arbitration-related matters, the key factor is the adherence to procedural deadlines, and in this case, Jasmine acted within the specified period. Courts generally recognize this 20-day timeframe as a fair period for a party to respond to a demand for arbitration. Filing an application to stay arbitration within this deadline provides the party with a legitimate opportunity to present any valid objections to the arbitration proceeding. The fact that she served the application within this window indicates that the court should allow her request to be heard, ensuring that her concerns regarding the arbitration are addressed appropriately. The focus here is on Jasmine's timely action, which aligns with the procedural standards typically upheld in arbitration disputes. In contrast, other options highlight reasons that either undermine the validity of her application or impose additional preconditions that do not apply in her case. Thus, the correct approach is to proceed with hearing Jasmine's application, as it conforms to the required timeline for such actions.