In re the Arbitration between P. J. Carlin Construction Co. & County of Rockland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between P. J. Carlin Construction Co. & County of Rockland

63 A.D.2d 702, 404 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11613

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

DecidedMay 15, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 702 (In re the Arbitration between P. J. Carlin Construction Co. & County of Rockland) 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 P. J. Carlin Construction Co. & County of Rockland, 63 A.D.2d 702, 404 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 27, 1976, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application granted. The contract between the parties clearly indicates that no demand for arbitration could be made after the date of final payment on the project. The county does not contend that full payment has not been made; nor does it contend that the demand for arbitration was made prior to such payment. The plain meaning of the contract gives no support to the contention that paragraph 32 thereof effects an extension of the otherwise applicable limitations period. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 27, 1976, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application granted. The contract between the parties clearly indicates that no demand for arbitration could be made after the date of final payment on the project. The county does not contend that full payment has not been made; nor does it contend that the demand for arbitration was made prior to such payment. The plain meaning of the contract gives no support to the contention that paragraph 32 thereof effects an extension of the otherwise applicable limitations period. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 702, 404 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-p-j-carlin-construction-co-county-of-nyappdiv-1978.