Cunningham v. Horning Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Horning Construction

309 A.D.2d 1187, 765 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10181

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1187 (Cunningham v. Horning Construction) 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

Cunningham v. Horning Construction, 309 A.D.2d 1187, 765 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fraise, J.), entered February 4, 2003, that granted the motion of defendant A.A.C. Contracting, Inc. seeking a permanent stay of arbitration.

[1188]*1188It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant A.A.C. Contracting, Inc. (AAC) seeking a permanent stay of arbitration. As the court properly determined, defendant Horning Construction (Horning) waived its right to arbitrate its claim against AAC by asserting a cross claim against AAC in which it sought recoupment of the same funds sought in its demand for arbitration (see generally De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 [1974]). Moreover, the demand for arbitration was not made until two years after the interposition of the cross claim. Where, as here, the “participation [of Horning] in the lawsuit manifests an affirmative acceptance’ of the judicial forum, with whatever advantages [the judicial forum] may offer in the particular case, [its] actions are then inconsistent with [its] later claim that only the arbitral forum is satisfactory” (id.). Present — Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fraise, J.), entered February 4, 2003, that granted the motion of defendant A.A.C. Contracting, Inc. seeking a permanent stay of arbitration.

[1188]*1188It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant A.A.C. Contracting, Inc. (AAC) seeking a permanent stay of arbitration. As the court properly determined, defendant Horning Construction (Horning) waived its right to arbitrate its claim against AAC by asserting a cross claim against AAC in which it sought recoupment of the same funds sought in its demand for arbitration (see generally De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 405 [1974]). Moreover, the demand for arbitration was not made until two years after the interposition of the cross claim. Where, as here, the “participation [of Horning] in the lawsuit manifests an affirmative acceptance’ of the judicial forum, with whatever advantages [the judicial forum] may offer in the particular case, [its] actions are then inconsistent with [its] later claim that only the arbitral forum is satisfactory” (id.). Present — Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1187, 765 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-horning-construction-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack