D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc. v. Parr General Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc. v. Parr General Contracting Co.

270 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 487 (D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc. v. Parr General Contracting Co.) 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

D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc. v. Parr General Contracting Co., 270 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, Parr General Contracting Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated April 19, 1999, as denied its motion to consolidate the arbitration of its claims against the respondents D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc., Pirraglia Contracting, Inc., HST Management, Ltd., and HST Roofing, Inc., with a separate arbitration of a claim against it by the respondent Di-mac Direct, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the application for consolidation of the arbitration proceedings was properly denied (see, Matter of Salvano v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 85 NY2d 173; Steuerman v Broughton, 123 AD2d 681; cf., County of Sullivan v Nezelek, 42 NY2d 123). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, Parr General Contracting Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated April 19, 1999, as denied its motion to consolidate the arbitration of its claims against the respondents D&F Mason Contractors Supply, Inc., Pirraglia Contracting, Inc., HST Management, Ltd., and HST Roofing, Inc., with a separate arbitration of a claim against it by the respondent Di-mac Direct, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the application for consolidation of the arbitration proceedings was properly denied (see, Matter of Salvano v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 85 NY2d 173; Steuerman v Broughton, 123 AD2d 681; cf., County of Sullivan v Nezelek, 42 NY2d 123). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/df-mason-contractors-supply-inc-v-parr-general-contracting-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack