In re Navarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Navarro

266 A.D. 181, 41 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3516

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 1943·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the arbitrators should have adjourned the hearings in order to afford the appellant an opportunity to secure evidence concerning the alleged excessive charges for freight. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 3.)

The judgment and orders should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings.

Untermyer, Bore and Cohn, ' JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Callahan, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment and orders reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with opinion. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

We think the arbitrators should have adjourned the hearings in order to afford the appellant an opportunity to secure evidence concerning the alleged excessive charges for freight. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 3.)

The judgment and orders should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings.

Untermyer, Bore and Cohn, ' JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Callahan, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment and orders reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with opinion. Settle order on notice.

In re Navarro, 266 A.D. 181, 41 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

266 A.D. 181 (In re Navarro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related