In re the Arbitration between Thornton Street Realty Co. & B. J. Lucarelli & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Thornton Street Realty Co. & B. J. Lucarelli & Co.

10 A.D.2d 565, 196 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12017

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 565 (In re the Arbitration between Thornton Street Realty Co. & B. J. Lucarelli & Co.) 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 Thornton Street Realty Co. & B. J. Lucarelli & Co., 10 A.D.2d 565, 196 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. There are arbitrable issues raised by the demand for arbitration. In holding that arbitrable issues are presented — such as the duty to erect the steel by October 1, 1956, the liability of the owner for any delay of the independent contractor to complete that work in time, responsibility of the owner for other delays, and the timeliness of the demand for arbitration — we do not, of course, decide nor indicate any views as to any of those issues. Their resolution is exclusively in the province of the arbitrators. So, too, further particularization of the second item of the demand for arbitration is a matter for the arbitral tribunal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. There are arbitrable issues raised by the demand for arbitration. In holding that arbitrable issues are presented — such as the duty to erect the steel by October 1, 1956, the liability of the owner for any delay of the independent contractor to complete that work in time, responsibility of the owner for other delays, and the timeliness of the demand for arbitration — we do not, of course, decide nor indicate any views as to any of those issues. Their resolution is exclusively in the province of the arbitrators. So, too, further particularization of the second item of the demand for arbitration is a matter for the arbitral tribunal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 565, 196 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-thornton-street-realty-co-b-j-lucarelli-nyappdiv-1960.