Legal Opinion

Met Food Corp. v. M. Eisenberg & Bros.

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1969PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJack Stanislaw, J.

Petitioner Met Food Corp. (“Met”), as owner, engaged the Heyward-Bobinson Company, Inc. (“ Heyward ”) as general contractor and respondent M. Bisen*499berg & Bros., Inc. (“Eisenberg”) as electrical contractor for the construction of a large warehouse. Included in the contractual documents affecting the work of each contractor is a provision for the arbitration of all disputes, involving claims for damages sustained by one party by reason of any wrongful act or neglect of another. The arbitration clause outlines the procedures to be followed, including the method of service of notice to arbitrate,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matter of Zimmerman v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. In re the Arbitration between Contessa Sportswear, Ltd. & Saugerties Mfg. Co.New York Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Litton Bionetics, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  2. Polshek v. Bergen Cty. Iron WorksNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
  3. Litton Bionetics, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. William Morris Agency, Inc. v. CambridgeNew York Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API