New York Telephone Co. v. Speciner

New York Court of Appeals

New York Telephone Co. v. Speciner

434 N.E.2d 708, 55 N.Y.2d 1002, 449 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3174

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 434 N.E.2d 708 (New York Telephone Co. v. Speciner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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. Speciner, 434 N.E.2d 708, 55 N.Y.2d 1002, 449 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3174 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, cross motion for a permanent stay denied, and motion to compel arbitration granted. A timely demand for arbitration was made by Marshall in February, 1972 well within the six-year Statute of Limitations and was judicially stayed until the condition precedent to arbitration was satisfied. The condition was met in November, 1973 after Marshall submitted its claim to the architect who failed to render a decision within 10 days. Any further questions as to undue delay or abandonment of the proceeding are for the arbitrator (see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, and Meyer. Taking no part: Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, cross motion for a permanent stay denied, and motion to compel arbitration granted. A timely demand for arbitration was made by Marshall in February, 1972 well within the six-year Statute of Limitations and was judicially stayed until the condition precedent to arbitration was satisfied. The condition was met in November, 1973 after Marshall submitted its claim to the architect who failed to render a decision within 10 days. Any further questions as to undue delay or abandonment of the proceeding are for the arbitrator (see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, and Meyer. Taking no part: Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 N.E.2d 708, 55 N.Y.2d 1002, 449 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-telephone-co-v-speciner-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack