From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Barbalious v. Exterior Wall Sys., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2005
14 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-02062

January 10, 2005.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an agreement dated October 9, 2001, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 20, 2004, which granted the petition to stay the arbitration and denied the motion to compel arbitration.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion to compel arbitration is granted, the petition is denied, and the processing is dismissed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to stay the arbitration ( see Matter of Liebhafsky [Comstruct Assoc.], 62 NY2d 439). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the provision requiring submission of claims to the architect within 21 days, although termed a condition precedent, is a matter of contract interpretation for the arbitrator to resolve ( see Matter of Calvin Klein, Inc. [Winter Assoc.], 204 AD2d 149; Matter of Spencer-Van Etten Cent. School Dist. [Auchinachie Sons], 179 AD2d 855).


Summaries of

In re Barbalious v. Exterior Wall Sys., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2005
14 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In re Barbalious v. Exterior Wall Sys., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN BARBALIOUS et al., Respondents, v. EXTERIOR WALL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 715

Citing Cases

Chain Sales Mktg., Inc. v. Roach

Whether Timothy Roach can prevail and how to value his shares is left to the arbitrator. Matters of contract…

Beals v. New York City Tr.

Although not addressed by the parties, the arbitrator apparently and inadvertently reversed the…