In a June 6, 2025 decision by Justice Linda S. Jamieson in Moshe Bain v. Samuel Strulovitch, et al., the Westchester County Commercial Division denied two motions to dismiss in a complex dispute concerning ownership interests in a Mount Vernon nursing home and the real estate on which it operates. The litigation centers on the legal effect of a rabbinical arbitration award issued without the participation of all stakeholders.

Background

The case involves Parkview Operating Co., LLC (the operator of Westchester Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing) and Westchester Gardens Realty LLC (owner of the facility’s real property). Plaintiff Moshe Bain, a minority owner in both entities, challenges a rabbinical arbitration award initiated by Samuel Strulovitch, who claimed an ownership interest despite not being listed among the members of Parkview or Westchester Gardens.

Bain and nominal defendant Robert Bleier allege that the arbitration was conducted without notice to them, and that the resulting award—finding that Strulovitch owns 22% of the operation and realty—improperly impacts their ownership stakes and rights, including rights of first refusal.

In response, Strulovitch and affiliated entities moved to dismiss the petition and Bleier’s cross-claims, arguing that neither Bain nor Bleier had standing to challenge the rabbinical award because they were not parties to the arbitration or its underlying agreement.

The Court’s Decision

Justice Jamieson rejected the defendants’ arguments, holding that:

  • The existence of an arbitration agreement must be determined at a hearing if there is a factual dispute. The Court found that the evidence—including communications by Strulovitch’s rabbinical representative expressing conditional willingness to arbitrate—raised factual issues as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.
  • Standing to challenge the award was not foreclosed under CPLR § 7511(b)(2), which permits a non-party to seek vacatur where their rights are prejudiced and they were not served with a notice of intention to arbitrate. Since Bain and Bleier had no opportunity to participate and their ownership interests may be materially affected, the Court declined to dismiss their claims on this ground.
  • The case presents substantial controversies warranting judicial resolution, including whether the Rockland arbitration was valid, whether the award impacts Bain and Bleier’s interests, and whether the parties agreed to a subsequent arbitration in Brooklyn that might supersede the original award.

Key Takeaways

This decision reinforces the principle that arbitration, even in religious or alternative fora, must comply with basic procedural protections—particularly notice and opportunity to participate—when the rights of non-parties are at stake. The ruling also highlights the nuanced standards for standing under CPLR § 7511 and the importance of factual development when determining the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The case will proceed, and a hearing may be required to resolve disputed issues surrounding the validity and enforceability of the arbitration process and award.

To learn more about new developments in the Westchester Commercial Division, please subscribe to the Westchester Commercial Division Blog.