1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 193 N.J.
  5. 193 N.J. Super. 389 (1984)
 

RUSH, UROLOGY ASSOC. v. KUHN, SMITH & HARRIS, INC.

193 N.J. Super. 389 (1984)

474 A.2d 1072

MARTIN RUSH, UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., WALTER KAHN AND MARCELLUS AND MASSELL, P.A., PARTNERS TRADING UNDER THE NAME OF 70 EAST AND MARTIN RUSH, UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, WALTER KAHN, AND MARCELLUS AND MASSELL, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. KUHN, SMITH & HARRIS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PAUL W. REILLY; JOHN C. MORRIS; FRAIOLI-BLUM-YESSELMAN AND PARTNERS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND FRAIOLI-BLUM-YESSELMAN AND PARTNERS, DEFENDANTS, THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ESTATE OF DR. MARTIN RUSH, UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., WALTER KAHN, AND MARCELLUS AND MASSELL, P.A., PARTNERS TRADING UNDER THE NAME OF 70 EAST, THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. KUHN, SMITH & HARRIS, INC., A BODY CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DR. WALTER J. KAHN, DR. MARTIN RUSH, MARCELLUS & MASSELL, P.A., UROLOGY PROPERTIES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS T/A 70 EAST, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND HARRY RICH ACOUSTICS, INC., HUDIK-ROSS, INC., RED BANK ELECTRIC, INC., B. KATCHEN IRON WORKS, INC., DEFENDANTS, AND PAUL W. REILLY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 8, 1984.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Merritt T. Viscardi argued the cause for appellants (Apruzzese & McDermott, attorneys; Merritt T. Viscardi on the brief).

John C. Givens argued the cause for respondent Kuhn, Smith & Harris, Inc. (Parsons, Canzona, Blair & Warren, attorneys; John C. Givens on the brief).

Frederick C. Heissenbuttel argued the cause for respondent Paul W. Reilly (DeYoe and Guiney, attorneys; Frederick C. Heissenbuttel on the brief).

H. Frank Carpentier argued the cause for respondents Fraioli, Blum & Yesselman (Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis, attorneys; H. Frank Carpentier of counsel; Robert D. Faccone on the brief).

Connell, Foley & Geiser, attorneys for respondent John C. Morris Associates (Peter D. Manahan of counsel; Peter J. Smith on the brief).

Before Judges BISCHOFF, PETRELLA and BRODY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by BRODY, J.A.D.

This protracted litigation was commenced in 1975 to resolve disputes arising out of the construction of an office building. The issues on these appeals demonstrate the serious problems caused by using arbitration to resolve some aspects of a single, complex controversy and using litigation to resolve others.

Plaintiffs are four medical doctors

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases