MEMORANDUM. Order affirmed.
The conclusory allegations contained in the petition and moving papers are insufficient to demonstrate that there is a "substantial question of the existence of a `valid agreement' to arbitrate" (Durst v Abrash, 22 A.D.2d 39, 41, affd on opn below 17 N.Y.2d 445). Specifically, petitioners do not spell out evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue in support of their claim that they were induced to enter into the partnership agreement or to agree to the arbitration clause contained within it as a result of fraud or duress (8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 7503.23, p 75-83; see Moseley v Electronic Facilities, 374 U.S. 167; Matter of Housekeeper v Lourie, 39 A.D.2d 280, app dsmd 32 N.Y.2d 832). Nor does the agreement, on its face, constitute an unlawful restraint of trade (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 36 N.Y.2d 945, 947). Hence, the application to stay arbitration was properly denied.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.