System Structures, Inc. v. Blair Chevrolet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

System Structures, Inc. v. Blair Chevrolet, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 457, 260 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032

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

DecidedJune 1, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 457 (System Structures, Inc. v. Blair Chevrolet, Inc.) 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

System Structures, Inc. v. Blair Chevrolet, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 457, 260 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a building corporation to recover the unpaid balance due under a contract between it and the defendant corporation, BLAIR CHEVROLET, INC., the owner of certain premises, for [458]*458the construction of an automobile sales showroom and repair area upon said premises, in which the owner Blair counter-claimed for alleged defects in the construction of the building and at the same time instituted a third-party action against the architects, Bock and Fellman, as third-party defendants, for alleged defects in the plans and specifications for the building, the owner Blair appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 28, 1964 upon reargument, which: (1) vacated a prior order granting consolidation of two arbitration proceedings, one being between plaintiff and Blair and one between Blair and Bock, and denied such consolidation; (2) granted the motion of Bock and Fellman to compel arbitration between Blair and Bock and to stay the third-party action against them pending determination of said arbitration; and (3) directed that the action by plaintiff against Blair be determined prior to the arbitration between Blair and Bock. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking therefrom the second, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs; and (2) by substituting therefor decretal provisions which: (a) grant the motion to compel arbitration between the defendant Blair and the third-party defendant Bock and to stay the third-party action between the said parties; (b) deny the motion to stay the prosecution of the third-party action against third-party defendant Fellman; and (e) direct that the differences between plaintiff and the defendant Blair be tried and determined together with the claim of defendant Blair against the third-party defendant Fellman. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the claims of the owner Blair against plaintiff builder and against architect Fellman as to who caused the alleged damage to the owner’s building should be tried and determined together. We are also of the opinion that arbitration between owner Blair and architect Bock was properly directed. However, the consolidation of the two alleged arbitration proceedings (between plaintiff and Blair, and between Blair and third-party defendant Bock) was properly denied. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a building corporation to recover the unpaid balance due under a contract between it and the defendant corporation, BLAIR CHEVROLET, INC., the owner of certain premises, for [458]*458the construction of an automobile sales showroom and repair area upon said premises, in which the owner Blair counter-claimed for alleged defects in the construction of the building and at the same time instituted a third-party action against the architects, Bock and Fellman, as third-party defendants, for alleged defects in the plans and specifications for the building, the owner Blair appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 28, 1964 upon reargument, which: (1) vacated a prior order granting consolidation of two arbitration proceedings, one being between plaintiff and Blair and one between Blair and Bock, and denied such consolidation; (2) granted the motion of Bock and Fellman to compel arbitration between Blair and Bock and to stay the third-party action against them pending determination of said arbitration; and (3) directed that the action by plaintiff against Blair be determined prior to the arbitration between Blair and Bock. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking therefrom the second, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs; and (2) by substituting therefor decretal provisions which: (a) grant the motion to compel arbitration between the defendant Blair and the third-party defendant Bock and to stay the third-party action between the said parties; (b) deny the motion to stay the prosecution of the third-party action against third-party defendant Fellman; and (e) direct that the differences between plaintiff and the defendant Blair be tried and determined together with the claim of defendant Blair against the third-party defendant Fellman. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the claims of the owner Blair against plaintiff builder and against architect Fellman as to who caused the alleged damage to the owner’s building should be tried and determined together. We are also of the opinion that arbitration between owner Blair and architect Bock was properly directed. However, the consolidation of the two alleged arbitration proceedings (between plaintiff and Blair, and between Blair and third-party defendant Bock) was properly denied. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 457, 260 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/system-structures-inc-v-blair-chevrolet-inc-nyappdiv-1965.