Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 26, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 29, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated May 29, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 (c) is granted, the respondents' motion for a permanent stay of arbitration is denied, the petitioner's cross motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the order dated March 26, 1997, is vacated; and it is further,
Ordered that the petitioner is awarded one bill of costs.
The petitioner correctly argues that the Supreme Court's concern should have merely been whether the parties made a valid agreement to arbitrate and not whether the contract as a whole was unenforceable (see, In formation Sciences v. Mohawk Data Science Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 918; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], 38 N.Y.2d 570; Brown v. Bussey, 245 A.D.2d 255; Matter of Jeffries v. Ross, 238 A.D.2d 288; Matter of Fener Realty Co. [Nico Constr. Co.], 182 A.D.2d 436; Stoianoff v. New Am. Lib., 148 A.D.2d 600). Here, we are satisfied that the parties did make such an agreement (see, Matter of. Jeffries v. Ross, supra). Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 7502 (c) (see, Matter of Guarini [Severini], 233 A.D.2d 196).
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.