In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Frank & Lindy Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Frank & Lindy Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

40 A.D.2d 717, 337 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 717 (In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Frank & Lindy Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) 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

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Frank & Lindy Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 40 A.D.2d 717, 337 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding (1) to stay arbitration demanded by respondent and (2) for a jury trial of a stated issue, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 12,1971, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with the views set forth herein. Respondent demanded arbitration of several claims pursuant to its contract with appellant. The papers submitted to Special Term raise issues as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, whether Document A 201 was made a part of the contract, and respondent’s compliancé with pertinent provisions of the contract, all of which must be resolved upon a trial, which should be before a jury, since petitioner seeks such a trial, before the parties can proceed with arbitration. Martuscello, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., and Munder, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

In a proceeding (1) to stay arbitration demanded by respondent and (2) for a jury trial of a stated issue, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 12,1971, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with the views set forth herein. Respondent demanded arbitration of several claims pursuant to its contract with appellant. The papers submitted to Special Term raise issues as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, whether Document A 201 was made a part of the contract, and respondent’s compliancé with pertinent provisions of the contract, all of which must be resolved upon a trial, which should be before a jury, since petitioner seeks such a trial, before the parties can proceed with arbitration. Martuscello, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., and Munder, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 717, 337 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-board-of-education-frank-lindy-plumbing-nyappdiv-1972.