Legal Opinion

Jiampietro v. Utica Alloys, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 4, 1991No. Appeal No. 2Published

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

  1. In re the Arbitration between Waldron & GoddessNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Lovisa Constr. Co. v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  4. Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API