In re Moss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Moss

30 A.D.2d 949, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 949 (In re Moss) 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 Moss, 30 A.D.2d 949, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dated August 7, 1967 is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, the stay of arbitration vacated, and the parties directed to arbitrate. The agreement containing the arbitration clause was signed by respondent-appellant and Moss, and its effectiveness as a contract between them was not impaired by the reference to the prospective formation of a new company. Whether the new company, when formed, was intended to be substituted for Moss is a matter for-the arbitrators to determine, as is the claim by Moss that in any event he undertook no personal obligation in connection with the watch transactions or that, if he did, he was relieved of it by respondent-appellant’s alleged default in delivery. Concur — Botein, P. J., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivern and Macken, JJ.

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

Order dated August 7, 1967 is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, the stay of arbitration vacated, and the parties directed to arbitrate. The agreement containing the arbitration clause was signed by respondent-appellant and Moss, and its effectiveness as a contract between them was not impaired by the reference to the prospective formation of a new company. Whether the new company, when formed, was intended to be substituted for Moss is a matter for-the arbitrators to determine, as is the claim by Moss that in any event he undertook no personal obligation in connection with the watch transactions or that, if he did, he was relieved of it by respondent-appellant’s alleged default in delivery. Concur — Botein, P. J., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivern and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 949, 293 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moss-nyappdiv-1968.