In re the Arbitration between Kayfield Construction Corp. & Brompton Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Kayfield Construction Corp. & Brompton Service Corp.

87 A.D.2d 554, 448 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15794

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 554 (In re the Arbitration between Kayfield Construction Corp. & Brompton Service Corp.) 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 Kayfield Construction Corp. & Brompton Service Corp., 87 A.D.2d 554, 448 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shorter, J.), entered August 7,1981, denying petitioners’ application to stay arbitration is modified, without costs, on the law, to the extent that arbitration is stayed as to Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, which did not agree to arbitrate, and otherwise affirmed. The fact that Kayfield Construction Corporation may have certain claims against the City of New York does not preclude arbitration between Kayfield and Brompton Service Corporation notwithstanding the fact that the contract contains a provision stating that “[a]ny disputes to which City is a party will not be arbitrated but resolved by their procedures”. A party may not defeat a valid arbitration clause by introducing a third party which is not a party to the contract and has only a tangential connection to the issues to be arbitrated. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Lupiano, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shorter, J.), entered August 7,1981, denying petitioners’ application to stay arbitration is modified, without costs, on the law, to the extent that arbitration is stayed as to Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, which did not agree to arbitrate, and otherwise affirmed. The fact that Kayfield Construction Corporation may have certain claims against the City of New York does not preclude arbitration between Kayfield and Brompton Service Corporation notwithstanding the fact that the contract contains a provision stating that “[a]ny disputes to which City is a party will not be arbitrated but resolved by their procedures”. A party may not defeat a valid arbitration clause by introducing a third party which is not a party to the contract and has only a tangential connection to the issues to be arbitrated. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Lupiano, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 554, 448 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-kayfield-construction-corp-brompton-nyappdiv-1982.