Excerpts: Baronoff v. Kean Dev. Co
- Steven Baronoff and Mindy Baronoff, petitioners v. Kean Development Company, Inc. and American Arbitration Association, respondents
- On June 11, 2004, petitioners entered into a construction management agreement with respondent Kean Development Company, Inc., in which Kean agreed to manage and direct the renovation of petitioners’ residence in Lloyd Harbor. On August 18, 2004, petitioners and Kean entered into a second construction management agreement in which Kean agreed to manage and direct the renovation of petitioners’ apartment in Manhattan.
- In December 2004, petitioners terminated Kean from both renovation projects. Kean sent petitioners several invoices, some of which remain unpaid. Kean claims petitioners owe it $801,386.47 for the Lloyd Harbor home renovation and $171,093.54 for the Manhattan apartment renovation.
- By order to show cause dated February 3, 2006, petitioners sought and received a temporary stay of the arbitrations. Petitioners seek a permanent stay of the arbitrations on the ground that the mandatory arbitration clauses contained in the construction management agreements are null and void, pursuant to General Business Law § 399-c.
- Respondent’s argument that General Business Law § 399-c should not be deemed to apply herein because of the education and background of the petitioners is unpersuasive. The consumer protection afforded by General Business Law § 399-c is not to be limited by the sophistication of the particular consumer, but available to all consumers regardless of background.
- Petitioners’ application to stay the arbitrations is hereby granted. Respondent Kean’s cross motion for sanctions is denied.
Source: Baronoff v. Kean Dev. Co