In re Arbitration between Krawchick & Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Arbitration between Krawchick & Goldman

3 A.D.2d 678, 159 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 678 (In re Arbitration between Krawchick & Goldman) 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

In re Arbitration between Krawchick & Goldman, 3 A.D.2d 678, 159 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel arbitration, [679]*679the appeals are from so much of an order dater December 3, 1956 which, inter alia, modified the notice of arbitration and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration, and from an order dated December 18, 1956 denying a motion to resettle said order so as to change the dispositive parts thereof. Order dated December 3, 1956 affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeal from order dated December 18, 1956 dismissed, without costs. The order is not appealable. (Cohen v. Cohen, 286 App. Div. 1035.) But if the appeal were properly here the order would be affirmed. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to compel arbitration, [679]*679the appeals are from so much of an order dater December 3, 1956 which, inter alia, modified the notice of arbitration and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration, and from an order dated December 18, 1956 denying a motion to resettle said order so as to change the dispositive parts thereof. Order dated December 3, 1956 affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeal from order dated December 18, 1956 dismissed, without costs. The order is not appealable. (Cohen v. Cohen, 286 App. Div. 1035.) But if the appeal were properly here the order would be affirmed. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 678, 159 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-krawchick-goldman-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack