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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

54 A.D.2d 909, 387 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14747

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 909 (In re the Arbitration between Opark Construction Corp. & Eureka Constructors, 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 Opark Construction Corp. & Eureka Constructors, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 909, 387 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 12, 1975, which granted the application and stayed arbitration. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application denied, and arbitration is directed to proceed. The existence in the contract between the parties of a provision to arbitrate the delay claim here asserted must be deemed conceded on this record. The settlement letter upon which the petitioner relies specifically excepted the delay claim from its provisions; we do not view the procedures for submitting the delay claim through petitioner to the Housing and Development Administration as in any way vitiating the provision for arbitrating the delay claim (accord W. J. Barney Corp. v Palma F. Cooper, Inc., Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 13, 1975, Index No. 12880/75, Spiegel, J., affd 52 AD2d 778). [910]*910Once a valid provision to arbitrate is established, the issue of any claimed release of the claim which is to be arbitrated is one for the arbitrator (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 45, AD2d 191). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 12, 1975, which granted the application and stayed arbitration. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application denied, and arbitration is directed to proceed. The existence in the contract between the parties of a provision to arbitrate the delay claim here asserted must be deemed conceded on this record. The settlement letter upon which the petitioner relies specifically excepted the delay claim from its provisions; we do not view the procedures for submitting the delay claim through petitioner to the Housing and Development Administration as in any way vitiating the provision for arbitrating the delay claim (accord W. J. Barney Corp. v Palma F. Cooper, Inc., Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 13, 1975, Index No. 12880/75, Spiegel, J., affd 52 AD2d 778). [910]*910Once a valid provision to arbitrate is established, the issue of any claimed release of the claim which is to be arbitrated is one for the arbitrator (Matter of Riccardi [Modern Silver Linen Supply Co.], 45, AD2d 191). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 909, 387 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-opark-construction-corp-eureka-nyappdiv-1976.