In re the Arbitration between W.A. Digiacomo Associates, P. C. & Swanke Hayden Connell Architects

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between W.A. Digiacomo Associates, P. C. & Swanke Hayden Connell Architects

198 A.D.2d 121, 605 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 121 (In re the Arbitration between W.A. Digiacomo Associates, P. C. & Swanke Hayden Connell Architects) 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 W.A. Digiacomo Associates, P. C. & Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, 198 A.D.2d 121, 605 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered May 21, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As we held in Office of Irwin G. Cantor, P. C. v Swanke Hayden Connell & Partners (186 AD2d 71, 71-72), involving the same party respondent and substantially identical facts, "regardless of whether or not the statute of limitations for the contract claim has lapsed, the period of limitations for the indemnification claim did not accrue until payment by the party seeking indemnity.” The indemnification claim being timely, the entire dispute should be submitted to the arbitrator (supra). It is for the arbitrator to decide whether respondent’s other claims are time barred. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kassal, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered May 21, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As we held in Office of Irwin G. Cantor, P. C. v Swanke Hayden Connell & Partners (186 AD2d 71, 71-72), involving the same party respondent and substantially identical facts, "regardless of whether or not the statute of limitations for the contract claim has lapsed, the period of limitations for the indemnification claim did not accrue until payment by the party seeking indemnity.” The indemnification claim being timely, the entire dispute should be submitted to the arbitrator (supra). It is for the arbitrator to decide whether respondent’s other claims are time barred. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kassal, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 121, 605 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-wa-digiacomo-associates-p-c-swanke-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack