In re the Arbitration between Opark Construction Corp. & Eureka Constructors, Inc.

369 N.E.2d 7, 42 N.Y.2d 1025, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2363
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 4, 1977·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

[1026]*1026The contract negotiated by the parties provided specifically for arbitration of any dispute arising in connection with the delay claim here asserted. Although the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, its effect upon the delay claim is in dispute. Since a valid provision to arbitrate exists, the issue of whether the delay claim was released by the settlement agreement is for the arbitrator to determine. (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 45 AD2d 191, affd 36 NY2d 945.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

In re the Arbitration between Opark Construction Corp. & Eureka Constructors, Inc., 369 N.E.2d 7, 42 N.Y.2d 1025, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2363 (N.Y. 1977).

369 N.E.2d 7 (In re the Arbitration between Opark Construction Corp. & Eureka Constructors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Byrne v. United States
804 F. Supp. 577 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Thomas v. Mitchell-Bradford Chemical Co.
582 F. Supp. 1373 (E.D. New York, 1984)
Evans v. Hawker-Siddeley Aviation, Ltd.
482 F. Supp. 547 (S.D. New York, 1979)