Chemical Bank v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Bank v. Stahl

209 A.D.2d 327, 618 N.Y.S.2d 784

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chemical Bank v. Stahl. Read the opinion of the Court — 237 A.D.2d 231 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for a permanent stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that the specific arbi[328]*328tration clause at issue here (Section 41.01), calling for arbitration of claims pertaining to the Landlord’s claim for "additional rent, an increase in fixed rent or any other payment * * * due from Tenant,” did not cover the parties’ disputes concerning plaintiff-tenant’s responsibility for certain "Tenant Exit Work” as well as plaintiffs responsibility to undertake asbestos removal and to correct alleged violations of the fire code. Defendant’s claim that it has incurred monetary damages as a result of these alleged breaches cannot be construed as either "additional rent” or "other payment” within the meaning of Section 41.01 of the Leases. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for a permanent stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that the specific arbi[328]*328tration clause at issue here (Section 41.01), calling for arbitration of claims pertaining to the Landlord’s claim for "additional rent, an increase in fixed rent or any other payment * * * due from Tenant,” did not cover the parties’ disputes concerning plaintiff-tenant’s responsibility for certain "Tenant Exit Work” as well as plaintiffs responsibility to undertake asbestos removal and to correct alleged violations of the fire code. Defendant’s claim that it has incurred monetary damages as a result of these alleged breaches cannot be construed as either "additional rent” or "other payment” within the meaning of Section 41.01 of the Leases. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Chemical Bank v. Stahl, 209 A.D.2d 327, 618 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 327 (Chemical Bank v. Stahl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.