In re the Arbitration between Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. & Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. & Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc.

62 A.D.2d 928, 403 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10930

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

DecidedApril 4, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 928 (In re the Arbitration between Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. & Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc.) 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 Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc. & Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc., 62 A.D.2d 928, 403 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 27, 1977 denying petitioner’s motion for an order to punish respondents Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York for contempt and also modifying order, Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 15, 1975 by striking therefrom the provisions staying respondents, Aluminum Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, from proceeding with actions instituted by said respondents in the State as well as Federal courts in the State of Oklahoma, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable by appellant to respondents. In so affirming, however, we modify a finding of fact reached at Special Term (CPLR 5712, subd [b]). The court found that respondent Aluminum had not timely objected to petitioner’s notice of intention to arbitrate. The record discloses that said notice was mailed by petitioner on July 25, 1974 and received by respondents on July 26, 1974. Respondent’s application, made on August 15, 1974, to stay arbitration (CPLR 7503, subd [b]) was therefore timely. (Monarch Ins. Co. v [929]*929Pollack, 32 AD2d 819.) Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 27, 1977 denying petitioner’s motion for an order to punish respondents Aluminum Products Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York for contempt and also modifying order, Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 15, 1975 by striking therefrom the provisions staying respondents, Aluminum Distributors, Inc., and the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, from proceeding with actions instituted by said respondents in the State as well as Federal courts in the State of Oklahoma, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable by appellant to respondents. In so affirming, however, we modify a finding of fact reached at Special Term (CPLR 5712, subd [b]). The court found that respondent Aluminum had not timely objected to petitioner’s notice of intention to arbitrate. The record discloses that said notice was mailed by petitioner on July 25, 1974 and received by respondents on July 26, 1974. Respondent’s application, made on August 15, 1974, to stay arbitration (CPLR 7503, subd [b]) was therefore timely. (Monarch Ins. Co. v [929]*929Pollack, 32 AD2d 819.) Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 928, 403 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-aaacon-auto-transport-inc-aluminum-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack