In Grow, the city specifically asked the court to articulate whether it had intended in Naclerio and Lovisa (supra) to overrule its previous decisions in Ardsley and Maross (supra) and thereby hold unenforceable all ADR contractual provisions which designate an employee or agent of a contracting party as the decision maker.
Summary of this case from Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkDecided October 30, 1986
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
In Grow, the city specifically asked the court to articulate whether it had intended in Naclerio and Lovisa (supra) to overrule its previous decisions in Ardsley and Maross (supra) and thereby hold unenforceable all ADR contractual provisions which designate an employee or agent of a contracting party as the decision maker.
Summary of this case from Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkFull title:GROW TUNNELING CORP. v. CITY OF NEW YORK
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Oct 30, 1986
Furthermore, the differences between the subject dispute resolution clause and the Maross clause, the…