Anastasi & Associates v. Masaryk Towers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anastasi & Associates v. Masaryk Towers Corp.

52 A.D.3d 241, 859 N.Y.S.2d 167

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 5, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 241 (Anastasi & Associates v. Masaryk Towers Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anastasi & Associates v. Masaryk Towers Corp., 52 A.D.3d 241, 859 N.Y.S.2d 167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 3, 2007, confirming an arbitration award to petitioners in the principal amount of $214,073.02, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award was neither irrational nor contrary to public policy (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]). Respondent may not avoid payment for architectural services performed on its behalf by petitioners prior to the license suspension of one of the architects and without any evidence of misconduct on petitioners’ part in connection with this project. The court appropriately declined to divest this special proceeding of its summary nature by consolidating it with a preexisting plenary action (see Lun Far Co. v Aylesbury Assoc., 40 AD2d 794 [1972]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 3, 2007, confirming an arbitration award to petitioners in the principal amount of $214,073.02, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award was neither irrational nor contrary to public policy (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]). Respondent may not avoid payment for architectural services performed on its behalf by petitioners prior to the license suspension of one of the architects and without any evidence of misconduct on petitioners’ part in connection with this project. The court appropriately declined to divest this special proceeding of its summary nature by consolidating it with a preexisting plenary action (see Lun Far Co. v Aylesbury Assoc., 40 AD2d 794 [1972]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 241, 859 N.Y.S.2d 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anastasi-associates-v-masaryk-towers-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack