In re the Arbitration between Binkow & Brickman

1 A.D.2d 906, 149 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905

This text of 1 A.D.2d 906 (In re the Arbitration between Binkow & Brickman) 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 Binkow & Brickman, 1 A.D.2d 906, 149 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion to stay arbitration. The parties hereto entered into an agreement of joint venture to construct and operate a residential structure in Miami Beach, Florida, the agreement containing a provision that “ any controversy, difference or disagreement among the parties concerning any matter affecting this joint venture which cannot be resolved among the parties unanimously” should be submitted to arbitration. After the building was erected and in operation, negotiations were entered into for the purchase by appellants of respondent’s interest in the joint venture. The sale was not consummated and, claiming that the exchange of communications between the parties constituted a valid contract for the sale of his interest, respondent instituted proceedings for arbitration of that question. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to stay arbitration granted, without costs. In our opinion, the dispute sought to be arbitrated was not within the scope of the arbitration clause. The language of that clause is not sufficiently broad to encompass a controversy concerning the validity of an independent contract unconnected with the conduct of the joint venture or with any of the provisions of the agreement of joint venture. (Cf. Matter of Riverdale Fabrics Corp. [Tillinghast-Stiles Co.], 306 N. Y. 288, 289; Matter of Buxton v. Mallery, 245 N. Y. 337, and Matter of Bercu [Levinson], 270 App. Div. 537, affd. 296 N. Y. 866.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In Re the Arbitration Between Bercu & Levinson
72 N.E.2d 607 (New York Court of Appeals, 1947)
Matter of Buxton v. Mallery
157 N.E. 259 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
In re the Arbitration between Bercu & Levinson
270 A.D. 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 906, 149 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-binkow-brickman-nyappdiv-1956.