In re the Arbitration between All State Tax Service of Area 5, Inc. & Kerekes Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between All State Tax Service of Area 5, Inc. & Kerekes Bros.

34 A.D.2d 935, 312 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4399

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

DecidedJune 23, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 935 (In re the Arbitration between All State Tax Service of Area 5, Inc. & Kerekes Bros.) 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 All State Tax Service of Area 5, Inc. & Kerekes Bros., 34 A.D.2d 935, 312 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on July 30, 1968, unanimously modified on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, so as to deny the motion for a stay in its entirety and to direct that the arbitration proceed on all claims asserted in the demand for arbitration. The agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause, also contains a restrictive covenant, which forms the basis of claimant’s arbitration proceeding. “ Where there is a broad provision for arbitration, such as we have here, arbitration may be had as to all issues arising under the contract [citing cases] ”. (Matter of Exer cycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 336.) The question of the validity or invalidity of the restrictive covenant is not one involving public policy and does not involve positive violations of legislative enactments requiring the enjoining of arbitration. (Matter of Exer cycle, supra, p. 335.) What is involved is merely a claim of illegality based upon common-law grounds. Such an issue is for the arbitrator. (Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 N Y 2d 621.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order entered on July 30, 1968, unanimously modified on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, so as to deny the motion for a stay in its entirety and to direct that the arbitration proceed on all claims asserted in the demand for arbitration. The agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause, also contains a restrictive covenant, which forms the basis of claimant’s arbitration proceeding. “ Where there is a broad provision for arbitration, such as we have here, arbitration may be had as to all issues arising under the contract [citing cases] ”. (Matter of Exer cycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 336.) The question of the validity or invalidity of the restrictive covenant is not one involving public policy and does not involve positive violations of legislative enactments requiring the enjoining of arbitration. (Matter of Exer cycle, supra, p. 335.) What is involved is merely a claim of illegality based upon common-law grounds. Such an issue is for the arbitrator. (Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 N Y 2d 621.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 935, 312 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-all-state-tax-service-of-area-5-inc-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack