In re the Arbitration between Iron Workers Local Union No. 361 & Ornamental Iron Workers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Iron Workers Local Union No. 361 & Ornamental Iron Workers

232 A.D.2d 322, 648 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10562

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 322 (In re the Arbitration between Iron Workers Local Union No. 361 & Ornamental Iron Workers) 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 Iron Workers Local Union No. 361 & Ornamental Iron Workers, 232 A.D.2d 322, 648 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 19, 1995, which granted petitioners’ application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross petition to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that respondent waived its claim that the dispute was not arbitrable. With respect to a party who was served with a notice of intent to arbitrate, the time to seek a judicial determination of arbitrability is before arbitration commences, and not in response to an application to confirm the award (Bevona v Valencia, 191 AD2d 192). The IAS Court also properly declined to address respondent’s claim of fraud in the inducement, a matter for the arbitrator under the broad arbitration clauses contained in the underlying contract (Matter of Infosafe Sys. [International Dev. Partners], 228 AD2d 272). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 19, 1995, which granted petitioners’ application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross petition to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that respondent waived its claim that the dispute was not arbitrable. With respect to a party who was served with a notice of intent to arbitrate, the time to seek a judicial determination of arbitrability is before arbitration commences, and not in response to an application to confirm the award (Bevona v Valencia, 191 AD2d 192). The IAS Court also properly declined to address respondent’s claim of fraud in the inducement, a matter for the arbitrator under the broad arbitration clauses contained in the underlying contract (Matter of Infosafe Sys. [International Dev. Partners], 228 AD2d 272). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 322, 648 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-iron-workers-local-union-no-361-ornamental-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack