Court Opinion

ID: 9639244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:09:10.882101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:14.732820
License: Public Domain

McAULIFFE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but write separately to express the view that this decision does not foreclose consideration of *615the principle of substantial compliance in future cases concerning the procedural requirements for initiating a court action following arbitration.
The decision in this case rests upon findings of late filing and inadequate recitals in the pleading, and consequently there is no necessity to decide whether a notice of action might be drafted, filed and served in a manner sufficient to satisfy all statutory requirements for the filing of a notice of rejection as well. Nor need we decide whether the content and distribution of a complaint might under certain circumstances satisfy all notice and filing requirements of a notice of rejection and a notice of action. These are questions for another day.
RODOWSKY, J., concurs in the views here expressed.