In re Perm-Aseptic Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Perm-Aseptic Corp.

274 A.D. 895, 82 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3938

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D. 895 (In re Perm-Aseptic Corp.) 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 Perm-Aseptic Corp., 274 A.D. 895, 82 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellant’s application for a stay of arbitration and directing that arbitration proceed in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association for determination and award with respect to certain questions therein stated, reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and appellant’s motion for a stay of the arbitration granted, with $10 costs. In our opinion the so-called arbitration clause in the agreement does not constitute an agreement to submit to arbitration the precise matters as to which arbitration was sought and directed. (Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N. Y. 130; Finsilver, Still é Moss v. Goldberg, Maas & Co., 253 N. Y. 382, 390; Matter of Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co., 252 N. Y. 284, 299, 303; Matter of Kelley, 240 N. Y. 74, 78.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 943.]

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

Order denying appellant’s application for a stay of arbitration and directing that arbitration proceed in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association for determination and award with respect to certain questions therein stated, reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and appellant’s motion for a stay of the arbitration granted, with $10 costs. In our opinion the so-called arbitration clause in the agreement does not constitute an agreement to submit to arbitration the precise matters as to which arbitration was sought and directed. (Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N. Y. 130; Finsilver, Still é Moss v. Goldberg, Maas & Co., 253 N. Y. 382, 390; Matter of Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co., 252 N. Y. 284, 299, 303; Matter of Kelley, 240 N. Y. 74, 78.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 943.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 895, 82 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-perm-aseptic-corp-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack