City School District v. White Plains Teachers Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City School District v. White Plains Teachers Ass'n

44 A.D.2d 581, 353 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 581 (City School District v. White Plains Teachers Ass'n) 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

City School District v. White Plains Teachers Ass'n, 44 A.D.2d 581, 353 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration which had been sought by appellant, the appeal is from an order of .the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 19, 1973, which granted the application. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The negotiating committees for the parties executed a “Memorandum of Agreement” which stated, inter alia, that if the parties were unable to agree on the necessary language in drawing up their contract, such dispute would be submitted to arbitration. At the top of the memorandum the following was written: “Outline form only — subj. to lang. and approval of B of E and ratification by Tchs. Assn.” While it appears that the Board of Education agreed, in principle, to the inclusion in the contract of at least some of the provisions of the memorandum, a final contract had not yet been drawn. There could be no binding agreement where the parties had not agreed upon the language to be used in the contract. Where public agreements and public moneys are involved, contracts should be clear and explicit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration which had been sought by appellant, the appeal is from an order of .the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 19, 1973, which granted the application. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The negotiating committees for the parties executed a “Memorandum of Agreement” which stated, inter alia, that if the parties were unable to agree on the necessary language in drawing up their contract, such dispute would be submitted to arbitration. At the top of the memorandum the following was written: “Outline form only — subj. to lang. and approval of B of E and ratification by Tchs. Assn.” While it appears that the Board of Education agreed, in principle, to the inclusion in the contract of at least some of the provisions of the memorandum, a final contract had not yet been drawn. There could be no binding agreement where the parties had not agreed upon the language to be used in the contract. Where public agreements and public moneys are involved, contracts should be clear and explicit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 581, 353 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-school-district-v-white-plains-teachers-assn-nyappdiv-1974.