Zawilski v. Prahl Construction Corp.

237 A.D. 824
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D. 824 (Zawilski v. Prahl Construction 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
Zawilski v. Prahl Construction Corp., 237 A.D. 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Order denying motion to require respondents to submit to arbitration reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Service of the amended answer by appellant superseded the original answer, and failure to allege in the original answer a demand to arbitrate was corrected by including such allegation in the amended answer. While improperly pleaded, such allegation “ is no less an assertion that the defendant does not intend to abandon his rights, and so rebuts any inference that would otherwise be drawn from the mere service of the answer.” (Nagy v. Arcas Brass & Iron Co., Inc., 242 N. Y. 97.) Such delay on appellant’s part as there was in this ease does not constitute a waiver of his right to claim a settlement by way of arbitration. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kalin Contracting Co. v. Picram Construction Corp.
8 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Kane v. Ten Eyck Co.
10 Misc. 2d 398 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 A.D. 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zawilski-v-prahl-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1932.