Chris O'Connell, Inc. v. Beacon Looms, Inc.

235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 248 (Chris O'Connell, Inc. v. Beacon Looms, Inc.) 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
Chris O'Connell, Inc. v. Beacon Looms, Inc., 235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Order and judg[249]*249ment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered on or about June 14, 1996, which granted petitioner’s application to compel "mediation” before retired Judge Lester Evans, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing the parties to select a new arbitrator, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the IAS Court shall appoint an arbitrator, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the parties’ agreement employs the word "mediate” rather than "arbitrate”, it does provide that "[t]he proceedings shall be conducted as the mediator directs, with written findings”, that "such findings are agreed to be enforceable in any court with jurisdiction over the [losing] party”, and that "[c]osts of mediation shall be borne by the [losing] party”. We agree with the IAS Court that such language sufficiently indicates an intention to arbitrate rather than mediate (see, Matter of Mencher [Abeles & Kahn], 274 App Div 585, 588). Questions unrelated to whether the parties agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration, including whether petitioner abided by the arbitrator-selection process in good faith, must be left to the arbitrator (see, Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co., 37 NY2d 91, 96).

Due to the death of retired Judge Evans, a new arbitrator must be appointed. If the parties cannot agree upon the selection of a new arbitrator, the IAS Court shall make such appointment (see, CPLR 7504). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

In Re: Nortel Networks, Inc. v.
737 F.3d 265 (Third Circuit, 2013)
Railworks Corp. v. Villafane Electric Corp.
6 Misc. 3d 301 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
In re the Arbitration between Kern & Excelsior 57th Corp.
270 A.D.2d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chris-oconnell-inc-v-beacon-looms-inc-nyappdiv-1997.