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
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 7, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

176 N.E.2d 570 (In re Arbitration between Bronston & Glassman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ortiz
163 N.Y.S.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Schlaifer v. Sedlow
412 N.E.2d 1294 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)