Guerra v. Richard G. Krueger Corp.

4 Misc. 2d 696, 150 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 4, 1956·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Although not objecting to arbitration as such, the plaintiff opposes the stay applied for by the defendant solely because the defendant (while seeking the stay of the action at law) has not requested or consented to the arbitration.

The contention is without merit. It is apparent that the plaintiff sues upon and is bound by the terms of the collective agreement. It provides for arbitration. Having contractually selected such a tribunal, the parties are relegated to it. If both parties desire to arbitrate, they may do so by consent. If not, and the plaintiff is still aggrieved, he himself may institute arbitration proceedings in accordance with the terms of the agreement. He cannot compel the defendant to set the arbitration machinery in motion.

Accordingly, the application by the defendant for an order staying this action and all proceedings therein until arbitration be had between the parties is granted (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1451).

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

Guerra v. Richard G. Krueger Corp., 4 Misc. 2d 696, 150 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1979 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

4 Misc. 2d 696 (Guerra v. Richard G. Krueger Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.
468 A.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
272 N.W.2d 870 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)
King Records, Inc. v. Brown
21 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Simon v. Vogel
9 A.D.2d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
In re the Arbitration between Eimco Corp. & Deering, Milliken & Co.
6 Misc. 2d 422 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Klein Coat Corp. v. Peretz
4 Misc. 2d 341 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)