In re Arbitration between Bronston & Glassman

New York Court of Appeals

In re Arbitration between Bronston & Glassman

176 N.E.2d 570, 10 N.Y.2d 158, 218 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1961 N.Y. LEXIS 1084

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 N.E.2d 570 (In re Arbitration between Bronston & Glassman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Arbitration between Bronston & Glassman, 176 N.E.2d 570, 10 N.Y.2d 158, 218 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1961 N.Y. LEXIS 1084 (N.Y. 1961).

Pincite

Opinions

Fuld, J.

We all agree that, where a general release is unequivocal and unambiguous, the mere assertion that there is a dispute concerning its meaning does not create an arbitrable issue since, under such circumstances, it may not be said that a bona fide dispute exists. (See Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 334; Matter of Binger [Thatcher], 304 N. Y. 627; Matter of Minkin [Halperin], 304 N. Y. 617.) However, in view of the context in which the releases under consideration were drawn, it is clear that they are sufficiently dubious in content and meaning to require that the matter be submitted to arbitrators. This is, indeed, accentuated and confirmed by the circumstance that the judges of both the Appellate Division and of this court have given variant constructions to the documents.

The stay of arbitration was properly denied and, accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Fuld, J.

We all agree that, where a general release is unequivocal and unambiguous, the mere assertion that there is a dispute concerning its meaning does not create an arbitrable issue since, under such circumstances, it may not be said that a bona fide dispute exists. (See Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 334; Matter of Binger [Thatcher], 304 N. Y. 627; Matter of Minkin [Halperin], 304 N. Y. 617.) However, in view of the context in which the releases under consideration were drawn, it is clear that they are sufficiently dubious in content and meaning to require that the matter be submitted to arbitrators. This is, indeed, accentuated and confirmed by the circumstance that the judges of both the Appellate Division and of this court have given variant constructions to the documents.

The stay of arbitration was properly denied and, accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 N.E.2d 570, 10 N.Y.2d 158, 218 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1961 N.Y. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-bronston-glassman-ny-1961.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack