Double E Food Markets, Inc. v. Beatson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Double E Food Markets, Inc. v. Beatson

18 A.D.2d 976, 238 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 976 (Double E Food Markets, Inc. v. Beatson) 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

Double E Food Markets, Inc. v. Beatson, 18 A.D.2d 976, 238 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 7, 1963, denying petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant, and a trial directed as to the issue of the existence of a contract to arbitrate binding on the petitioner. The validity of the 10-day limitation period depends upon the sufficiency of the notice of intention to arbitrate. (Matter of Hesslein & Co. v. Greenfield, 281 N. Y. 26.) The notice of intention in the instant case indicates arbitration between “said parties ”, that is, the parties to the January 1, 1961 agreement (to wit, Brown and Local 174), and thereby petitioner may have assumed its rights were not involved in the arbitration proceeding. Petitioner also asserts in its affidavit that Pat Genco whose claim is involved was never in its employ. The notice was insufficient to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to show that it never entered a contract to arbitrate. (Schafran & Finkel v. Lowenstein & Sons, 280 N. Y. 164, 172.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 7, 1963, denying petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant, and a trial directed as to the issue of the existence of a contract to arbitrate binding on the petitioner. The validity of the 10-day limitation period depends upon the sufficiency of the notice of intention to arbitrate. (Matter of Hesslein & Co. v. Greenfield, 281 N. Y. 26.) The notice of intention in the instant case indicates arbitration between “said parties ”, that is, the parties to the January 1, 1961 agreement (to wit, Brown and Local 174), and thereby petitioner may have assumed its rights were not involved in the arbitration proceeding. Petitioner also asserts in its affidavit that Pat Genco whose claim is involved was never in its employ. The notice was insufficient to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to show that it never entered a contract to arbitrate. (Schafran & Finkel v. Lowenstein & Sons, 280 N. Y. 164, 172.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 976, 238 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/double-e-food-markets-inc-v-beatson-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack