In re the Arbitration between Artists' Representatives Ass'n & Haley

26 A.D.2d 918, 274 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 918 (In re the Arbitration between Artists' Representatives Ass'n & Haley) 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 Artists' Representatives Ass'n & Haley, 26 A.D.2d 918, 274 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

Order, entered on July 20, 1966, directing appellant to proceed to arbitration and granting to petitioner other related relief, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs or disbursements to any party, and the matter remanded to Special Term, with leave to petitioner to there resubmit its order. Pending said resubmission appellant is stayed from publicizing or enforcing, or attempting to publicize or enforce, the regulations purporting to govern artists’ representatives in the United States and Canada as published in the Spring 1966 issue of the “AGVA News” or any other regulations which might be unilaterally established by the appellant purporting to govern such artists’ representatives. The order appealed from is void as it was signed and entered after appellant had filed removal papers, thereby temporarily removing this ease to the United States District Court for the Southern District. On the removal, the State Supreme Court lost jurisdiction of the case. (U. S. Code, tit. 28, § 1446, subd. [e]); Fire Assn, of Philadelphia v. General Handkerchief Corp., 304 N. Y. 382, 385). Neither Special Term’s lack of knowledge of the removal, nor the subsequent grant by the Federal court of petitioner’s motion for remand, is sufficient to validate its order signed after the removal became effective. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Related

Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n/Fidelity New York FSB v. Lane
64 A.D.3d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Fee v. Richmond Manufacturing Co.
346 N.W.2d 290 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)
Maidman v. Jomar Hotel Corp.
384 So. 2d 728 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.2d 918, 274 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-artists-representatives-assn-haley-nyappdiv-1966.