Jiampietro v. Utica Alloys, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court correctly denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous and unenforceable because the "schedule” containing the list of sanctions available upon a breach of the underlying agreement is inconsistent with an agreement to arbitrate (see, Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 135 AD2d 523, 524; see also, Lovisa Constr. Co. v County of Suffolk, 108 AD2d 791; see generally, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183-184).
The court correctly denied defendants’ motion to renew because they did…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re the Arbitration between Waldron & GoddessNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Lovisa Constr. Co. v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987