In re the Arbitration between Active Fabrics Corp. & Rosedale Fabrics Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Active Fabrics Corp. & Rosedale Fabrics Inc.

275 A.D.2d 654

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 654 (In re the Arbitration between Active Fabrics Corp. & Rosedale Fabrics 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 Active Fabrics Corp. & Rosedale Fabrics Inc., 275 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are unable to perceive misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. No request was made to postpone the hearing nor is there to be found any refusal to hear evidence pertinent to the controversy. In a court of law the proceeding would of course have been conducted in conformity with recognized rules of law and procedure. However, as the parties have adopted arbitration to settle their differences and as they have chosen judges of their own whose decision is to be final, they cannot be heard to complain if the result reached by the tribunal selected does not meet with their approval. (Matter of Wilkins, 169 N. Y. 494; Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19, 33; Matter of Delma Engineering Corp. [Johnson Contr. Corp.], 267 App. Div. 410, 414, affd. 293 N. Y. 653.) In our opinion there was no warrant for setting aside the award.

The order should be reversed and the motion to confirm the award should be granted, with costs.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Yan Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 760.]

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

Per Curiam.

We are unable to perceive misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. No request was made to postpone the hearing nor is there to be found any refusal to hear evidence pertinent to the controversy. In a court of law the proceeding would of course have been conducted in conformity with recognized rules of law and procedure. However, as the parties have adopted arbitration to settle their differences and as they have chosen judges of their own whose decision is to be final, they cannot be heard to complain if the result reached by the tribunal selected does not meet with their approval. (Matter of Wilkins, 169 N. Y. 494; Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19, 33; Matter of Delma Engineering Corp. [Johnson Contr. Corp.], 267 App. Div. 410, 414, affd. 293 N. Y. 653.) In our opinion there was no warrant for setting aside the award.

The order should be reversed and the motion to confirm the award should be granted, with costs.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Yan Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 760.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-active-fabrics-corp-rosedale-fabrics-inc-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack