Bowes & Co. v. American Druggists' Insurance

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Whether the 1976 agreement was a novation or simply a modification of the 1974 agreement turns on the intent of the parties which, in the absence of extrinsic evidence of intent, is a question of law for the court (Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 288, 293). Comparison of the two agreements establishes that what was intended was modification rather than extinguishment of the 1974 contract.

*752Arbitration of a claim for rescission for fraud must be commenced within…