Bachman Co. v. Dominick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bachman Co. v. Dominick

139 A.D.2d 732, 527 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4461

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 732 (Bachman Co. v. Dominick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bachman Co. v. Dominick, 139 A.D.2d 732, 527 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated November 25, 1986, as denied a stay of arbitration, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 17, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 25, 1986, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order [733]*733dated March 17, 1987, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 17, 1987, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the court’s decision to refer to the arbitrator the issue of whether the parties’ contract providing for arbitration of disputes was terminated by a subsequent collective bargaining agreement (see, Matter of Cassone, 63 NY2d 756; Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow, 51 NY2d 181). Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI