In re the Arbitration between A. M. Perlman, Inc. & Rocket Dress Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between A. M. Perlman, Inc. & Rocket Dress Co.

285 A.D. 1021, 139 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537

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

DecidedApril 12, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1021 (In re the Arbitration between A. M. Perlman, Inc. & Rocket Dress Co.) 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 the Arbitration between A. M. Perlman, Inc. & Rocket Dress Co., 285 A.D. 1021, 139 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order appealed from unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, the motion to confirm the award of the arbitrators granted and the cross motion to vacate the award denied. It appears from the minutes of the hearing before the arbitrators that the respondents were fully advised of their rights independently of any statements made by an officer of the appellant corporation. The chairman advised respondents that the hearing would be adjourned so that counsel could be consulted by the respondents. After a recess, respondents’ president stated that $38,000 was the complete claim. It does not appear that respondents were misled into any misunderstanding of their rights. It may fairly be inferred from the record that the arbitrators considered and passed upon the counterclaim. (Cf. Matter of Springs Cotton Mills [Buster Boy Suit Co.], 275 App. Div. 196.) In the authorities to the contrary relied upon by respondents, there was no record of the proceedings from which such an inference could be drawn, or it was apparent that the arbitrators failed to make a final and definite determination of the entire controversy submitted. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order appealed from unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, the motion to confirm the award of the arbitrators granted and the cross motion to vacate the award denied. It appears from the minutes of the hearing before the arbitrators that the respondents were fully advised of their rights independently of any statements made by an officer of the appellant corporation. The chairman advised respondents that the hearing would be adjourned so that counsel could be consulted by the respondents. After a recess, respondents’ president stated that $38,000 was the complete claim. It does not appear that respondents were misled into any misunderstanding of their rights. It may fairly be inferred from the record that the arbitrators considered and passed upon the counterclaim. (Cf. Matter of Springs Cotton Mills [Buster Boy Suit Co.], 275 App. Div. 196.) In the authorities to the contrary relied upon by respondents, there was no record of the proceedings from which such an inference could be drawn, or it was apparent that the arbitrators failed to make a final and definite determination of the entire controversy submitted. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1021, 139 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-a-m-perlman-inc-rocket-dress-co-nyappdiv-1955.