| County Glass & Metal Installers, Inc. v Pavarini McGovern,LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06601 [65 AD3d 940] |
| September 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| County Glass & Metal Installers, Inc.,Appellant, v Pavarini McGovern, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Alumicor Corp.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Thomas S. Finegan of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 12, 2008,which granted defendant Alumicor's motion to stay this action and compel arbitration of itsdispute with plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In February 2005, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant property owner GlassHouse and defendant construction manager Pavarini, in connection with the construction of abuilding at 330 Spring Street in Manhattan, to supply and install on the building a glass curtainwall, manufactured by Alumicor. Five months later, plaintiff and Alumicor agreed in writing toarbitrate their disputes.
Pavarini and Glass House subsequently claimed that the glass curtain wall leaked, andrefused to pay a portion of the amount due to plaintiff under the contract. Plaintiff filed amechanic's lien, and thereafter commenced this action against Pavarini and Glass House. AfterPavarini and Glass House interposed counterclaims alleging defects in the glass curtain suppliedby Alumicor, plaintiff amended its complaint to add Alumicor as a defendant. Alumicor thenmoved to stay this action and compel arbitration.
"Where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course isto stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly where, as here,the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters" (Cohenv Ark Asset Holdings, 268 AD2d 285, 286 [2000]; see also RAD Ventures Corp. v Gotthilf, 6 AD3d 415 [2004]). Byfirst arbitrating the issue of whether the glass curtain wall was defective, before addressing therespective liabilities of the remaining parties regarding installation of the wall and constructiondelays, the interests of judicial economy will be served, and potentially inconsistent results maywell be avoided. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam,JJ.