In re the Arbitration between Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. & Kemikalija

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. & Kemikalija

11 A.D.2d 988, 205 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 988 (In re the Arbitration between Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. & Kemikalija) 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 Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. & Kemikalija, 11 A.D.2d 988, 205 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered 'February 29, 1960, denying petitioner-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The refusal of the buyer to make payment for the balance due on goods sold and delivered was a sufficient dispute authorizing arbitration within the provisions of the broad arbitration clause contained in the contract of sale. To the extent that Matter of Webster v. Van Allen (217 App. Div. 219 [4th Dept.]) seems to point to the contrary, the reasoning and conclusion in that case are not found persuasive. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [23 Misc 2d 98.]

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

Order, entered 'February 29, 1960, denying petitioner-appellant’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The refusal of the buyer to make payment for the balance due on goods sold and delivered was a sufficient dispute authorizing arbitration within the provisions of the broad arbitration clause contained in the contract of sale. To the extent that Matter of Webster v. Van Allen (217 App. Div. 219 [4th Dept.]) seems to point to the contrary, the reasoning and conclusion in that case are not found persuasive. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [23 Misc 2d 98.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 988, 205 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-associated-metals-minerals-corp-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack