Narrative Opinion Summary
The court reversed the order appealed from, awarded costs, denied the cross motion for a permanent stay, and granted the motion to compel arbitration. Marshall made a timely demand for arbitration in February 1972, which was within the six-year Statute of Limitations. The arbitration was stayed until a condition precedent was satisfied, which occurred in November 1973 when Marshall submitted its claim to the architect, who did not provide a decision within the required 10 days. Any concerns regarding undue delay or abandonment of the proceeding are to be addressed by the arbitrator. The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, and Meyer, while Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg took no part in the deliberation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Support for Arbitrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and reversed the previous order that denied it, emphasizing support for arbitration processes.
Reasoning: The court reversed the order appealed from, awarded costs, denied the cross motion for a permanent stay, and granted the motion to compel arbitration.
Role of Arbitrator in Addressing Procedural Concernssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Concerns regarding undue delay or abandonment of the arbitration proceeding are to be resolved by the arbitrator rather than the court.
Reasoning: Any concerns regarding undue delay or abandonment of the proceeding are to be addressed by the arbitrator.
Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent for Arbitrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The arbitration was initially stayed until the condition precedent was satisfied, which occurred when the architect failed to provide a decision within the required timeframe.
Reasoning: The arbitration was stayed until a condition precedent was satisfied, which occurred in November 1973 when Marshall submitted its claim to the architect, who did not provide a decision within the required 10 days.
Statute of Limitations for Arbitration Demandssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that Marshall's demand for arbitration was timely as it was made within the six-year Statute of Limitations.
Reasoning: Marshall made a timely demand for arbitration in February 1972, which was within the six-year Statute of Limitations.