CPS 1 Realty LP v. Brennan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CPS 1 Realty LP v. Brennan

115 A.D.3d 490, 981 N.Y.S.2d 535

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 490 (CPS 1 Realty LP v. Brennan) 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

CPS 1 Realty LP v. Brennan, 115 A.D.3d 490, 981 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered October 22, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for delay damages, and granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment determining, pursuant to an arbitration award, that defendants are responsible for 15% of the subject delays, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly declined to determine the scope of the arbitration award apportioning responsibility for the subject delays, specifically, whether the arbitrators regarded the delays as concurrent or consecutive (see Rembrandt Indus. v Hodges Intl., 38 NY2d 502 [1976]), on the ground that that issue was determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction in confirming the award.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered October 22, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for delay damages, and granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment determining, pursuant to an arbitration award, that defendants are responsible for 15% of the subject delays, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly declined to determine the scope of the arbitration award apportioning responsibility for the subject delays, specifically, whether the arbitrators regarded the delays as concurrent or consecutive (see Rembrandt Indus. v Hodges Intl., 38 NY2d 502 [1976]), on the ground that that issue was determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction in confirming the award.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 490, 981 N.Y.S.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cps-1-realty-lp-v-brennan-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack