New York Telephone Co. v. Alvord & Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Telephone Co. v. Alvord & Swift

49 A.D.2d 726, 372 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 726 (New York Telephone Co. v. Alvord & Swift) 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

New York Telephone Co. v. Alvord & Swift, 49 A.D.2d 726, 372 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment,Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 26, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Cross-petitioner-respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Special Term correctly found that cross-petitioner-respondent, Stewart M. Muller Construction Co., Inc., was not obligated to arbitrate with appellant Alvord & Swift since their contract did not specifically incorporate by reference or otherwise the arbitration clause of the main contract between Muller and New York Telephone Company. Furthermore, as stated by the court, there was no mutuality of obligation as regards remedies [727]*727between Muller and Alvord & Swift. The record fully supports the determination appealed from and we affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Helman below. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment,Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 26, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Cross-petitioner-respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Special Term correctly found that cross-petitioner-respondent, Stewart M. Muller Construction Co., Inc., was not obligated to arbitrate with appellant Alvord & Swift since their contract did not specifically incorporate by reference or otherwise the arbitration clause of the main contract between Muller and New York Telephone Company. Furthermore, as stated by the court, there was no mutuality of obligation as regards remedies [727]*727between Muller and Alvord & Swift. The record fully supports the determination appealed from and we affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Helman below. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 726, 372 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-telephone-co-v-alvord-swift-nyappdiv-1975.