Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
J. CASTRONOVO, INC., Appellant,
v.
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Respondents.
May 23, 1988.
 Action was brought to foreclose mechanic's lien.   The Supreme Court, 
Westchester County, Palella, J., denied plaintiff's motion for stay of 
arbitration.   Plaintiff appealed.   The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held 
that filing of notice of demand for arbitration and payment of filing fee were 
not conditions precedent to arbitration.
 Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Arbitration  23.1
33k23.1 Most Cited Cases
Filing of notice of demand for arbitration and payment of filing fee were not 
conditions precedent to arbitration, but were procedural requirements for 
conduct of arbitration.
[2] Arbitration  23.15
33k23.15 Most Cited Cases
Any questions as to compliance with procedural matters were to be decided by 
arbitration forum.
 *648 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum, on 
the brief) for appellant.
 Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and RUBIN, SPATT and SULLIVAN, JJ.
 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
 In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, the plaintiff appeals from an 
order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered March 30, 
1987, which denied its motion, inter alia, for a stay of arbitration.
 ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
 The plaintiff does not challenge that part of the court's determination which 
found that the notice of the demand for arbitration was timely served upon it, 
pursuant to the contract terms, within 30 days of an architect's final decision 
with respect to the parties' dispute.   Instead, the plaintiff urges on appeal 
that the court erroneously determined that the contract did not require, as 
condition precedent to arbitration, that notice of the demand be filed with the 
American Arbitration Association (hereinafter the AAA) within the same 30 day 
period.
 [1][2] As the trial court properly concluded, there is no express provision in 
the contract at issue that the party seeking arbitration file its notice of 
demand for arbitration with AAA within 30 days and we may not engraft such a 
limitation upon it.   Neither the filing with the AAA, nor the payment of the 
filing fee constituted conditions precedent to arbitration.   They are rather, 
procedural requirements for the conduct of the arbitration itself. Any questions 
as to compliance with these procedural matters shall be decided by the 
arbitration forum (see, Matter of Rockland County [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 
N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, 431 N.Y.S.2d 478, 409 N.E.2d 951).
528 N.Y.S.2d 647, 140 A.D.2d 585
END OF DOCUMENT
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
J. CASTRONOVO, INC., Appellant,v.HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Respondents.

May 23, 1988.

 Action was brought to foreclose mechanic's lien.   The Supreme Court, Westchester County, Palella, J., denied plaintiff's motion for stay of arbitration.   Plaintiff appealed.   The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that filing of notice of demand for arbitration and payment of filing fee were not conditions precedent to arbitration.
 Affirmed.

West Headnotes
[1] Arbitration  23.133k23.1 Most Cited Cases
Filing of notice of demand for arbitration and payment of filing fee were not conditions precedent to arbitration, but were procedural requirements for conduct of arbitration.
[2] Arbitration  23.1533k23.15 Most Cited Cases
Any questions as to compliance with procedural matters were to be decided by arbitration forum. *648 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum, on the brief) for appellant.

 Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and RUBIN, SPATT and SULLIVAN, JJ.


 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
 In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered March 30, 1987, which denied its motion, inter alia, for a stay of arbitration.
 ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
 The plaintiff does not challenge that part of the court's determination which found that the notice of the demand for arbitration was timely served upon it, pursuant to the contract terms, within 30 days of an architect's final decision with respect to the parties' dispute.   Instead, the plaintiff urges on appeal that the court erroneously determined that the contract did not require, as condition precedent to arbitration, that notice of the demand be filed with the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter the AAA) within the same 30 day period.
 [1][2] As the trial court properly concluded, there is no express provision in the contract at issue that the party seeking arbitration file its notice of demand for arbitration with AAA within 30 days and we may not engraft such a limitation upon it.   Neither the filing with the AAA, nor the payment of the filing fee constituted conditions precedent to arbitration.   They are rather, procedural requirements for the conduct of the arbitration itself. Any questions as to compliance with these procedural matters shall be decided by the arbitration forum (see, Matter of Rockland County [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, 431 N.Y.S.2d 478, 409 N.E.2d 951).
528 N.Y.S.2d 647, 140 A.D.2d 585
END OF DOCUMENT