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

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 327 (Chemical Bank v. Stahl) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 327, 618 N.Y.S.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-stahl-nyappdiv-1994.