From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robin Court Condo. v. L. 32B-32J, S.E.I.U

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 9, 1996
227 A.D.2d 194 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 9, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


The IAS Court properly deferred to the arbitrator the question of whether the conduct of the parties terminated, modified or renewed their collective bargaining agreement. The parties' agreement, which had by its own terms expired, contained a broad arbitration provision and an "evergreen clause", which provided that the agreement was to remain in full force and effect until a successor agreement had been executed or until either party had given 10 days' written notice of cancellation ( 31 W. 47th St. Co. v. Bevona, 215 A.D.2d 152, 153). The role of the court in deciding questions of arbitrability is limited to whether the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, and if so, whether the subject matter in dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision ( Board of Educ. v. Bellmore-Merrick United Secondary Teachers, 39 N.Y.2d 167, 171).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Robin Court Condo. v. L. 32B-32J, S.E.I.U

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 9, 1996
227 A.D.2d 194 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Robin Court Condo. v. L. 32B-32J, S.E.I.U

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN COURT CONDOMINIUM, Appellant, v. LOCAL 32B-32J, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO…

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

Date published: May 9, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 194 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 244