In re the Arbitration between Contessa Sportswear, Ltd. & Saugerties Mfg. Co.

New York Supreme Court

In re the Arbitration between Contessa Sportswear, Ltd. & Saugerties Mfg. Co.

49 Misc. 2d 50, 266 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 50 (In re the Arbitration between Contessa Sportswear, Ltd. & Saugerties Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court 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 Contessa Sportswear, Ltd. & Saugerties Mfg. Co., 49 Misc. 2d 50, 266 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Abthub G. Klein, J.

Motion to stay respondents from proceeding further with separate hearings on demands for arbitration made by the corporate respondents, and directing that said demands for arbitration be heard before a single panel of arbitrators is denied. In effect, petitioner is requesting this [51]*51court to consolidate arbitration proceedings, a power held and exercised by the courts under the Civil Practice Act (Matter of Symphony Fabrics Corp. [Bernson Silk Mills], 12 N Y 2d 409, 412; Matter of Adam Cons. Ind. [Miller Bros. Hat Co.], 6 A D 2d 515). However, it now appears that with the enactment of the CPLR, such power no longer exists, as the statutory basis therefor, sections 1459 and 96 of the Civil Practice Act, whereby arbitration was deemed a special proceeding, are no longer in effect, and under CPLR 7502, arbitration is not so characterized (see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 7502.05; McClaughlin, Civil Practice, 16 Syracuse L. Rev. 419, 429, 454). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Settle order.

[Original opinion adhered to on reargument, December 22, 1965.]

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

Abthub G. Klein, J.

Motion to stay respondents from proceeding further with separate hearings on demands for arbitration made by the corporate respondents, and directing that said demands for arbitration be heard before a single panel of arbitrators is denied. In effect, petitioner is requesting this [51]*51court to consolidate arbitration proceedings, a power held and exercised by the courts under the Civil Practice Act (Matter of Symphony Fabrics Corp. [Bernson Silk Mills], 12 N Y 2d 409, 412; Matter of Adam Cons. Ind. [Miller Bros. Hat Co.], 6 A D 2d 515). However, it now appears that with the enactment of the CPLR, such power no longer exists, as the statutory basis therefor, sections 1459 and 96 of the Civil Practice Act, whereby arbitration was deemed a special proceeding, are no longer in effect, and under CPLR 7502, arbitration is not so characterized (see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 7502.05; McClaughlin, Civil Practice, 16 Syracuse L. Rev. 419, 429, 454). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Settle order.

[Original opinion adhered to on reargument, December 22, 1965.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 2d 50, 266 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-contessa-sportswear-ltd-saugerties-mfg-nysupct-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack