In re the Arbitration between Bichler & 100 Lekington Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Bichler & 100 Lekington Avenue Corp.

4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 A.D.2d 949 (In re the Arbitration between Bichler & 100 Lekington Avenue Corp.) 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 Bichler & 100 Lekington Avenue Corp., 4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s application, pursuant to section 1450 of the Civil Practice [950]*950Act, to direct arbitration and denying appellant’s cross application, pursuant to sections 1450 and 1458 of said act, for a stay and a hearing. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. It does not appear that appellant has ever sought to rescind on the ground that the contract was procured by fraud, nor does appellant seek such relief now. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny respondent’s application and to grant appellant’s cross application on the ground that appellant is first entitled to a hearing and a determination on the issue as to the validity of the contract at its inception.

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

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s application, pursuant to section 1450 of the Civil Practice [950]*950Act, to direct arbitration and denying appellant’s cross application, pursuant to sections 1450 and 1458 of said act, for a stay and a hearing. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. It does not appear that appellant has ever sought to rescind on the ground that the contract was procured by fraud, nor does appellant seek such relief now. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny respondent’s application and to grant appellant’s cross application on the ground that appellant is first entitled to a hearing and a determination on the issue as to the validity of the contract at its inception.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-bichler-100-lekington-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack