Scarab Equities Corp. v. 684 Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarab Equities Corp. v. 684 Owners Corp.

216 A.D.2d 43, 627 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6110

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

DecidedJune 8, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 43 (Scarab Equities Corp. v. 684 Owners Corp.) 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

Scarab Equities Corp. v. 684 Owners Corp., 216 A.D.2d 43, 627 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 15, 1994, which granted respondent landlord’s motion to confirm that portion of the arbitration award relating to water charges due under petitioner tenant’s lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The order and judgment on appeal merely confirms that aspect of the award that by a prior order had been severed from the proceeding and remanded to the arbitrator for clarification, namely, the arbitrator’s calculation of petitioner’s share of the building’s water charges. Accordingly, the other controversies between the parties raised by petitioner are not reviewable in the context of this proceeding (Grullon v Servair, Inc., 121 AD2d 502, lv denied 69 NY2d 608). Petitioner fails to show any basis for vacating or modifying the award insofar as it relates to water charges. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 15, 1994, which granted respondent landlord’s motion to confirm that portion of the arbitration award relating to water charges due under petitioner tenant’s lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The order and judgment on appeal merely confirms that aspect of the award that by a prior order had been severed from the proceeding and remanded to the arbitrator for clarification, namely, the arbitrator’s calculation of petitioner’s share of the building’s water charges. Accordingly, the other controversies between the parties raised by petitioner are not reviewable in the context of this proceeding (Grullon v Servair, Inc., 121 AD2d 502, lv denied 69 NY2d 608). Petitioner fails to show any basis for vacating or modifying the award insofar as it relates to water charges. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 43, 627 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarab-equities-corp-v-684-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack