In re the Arbitration between Fiedler & Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Fiedler & Adler

7 A.D.2d 626, 179 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 626 (In re the Arbitration between Fiedler & Adler) 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 Fiedler & Adler, 7 A.D.2d 626, 179 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In each of the companion appeals the petitioner-respondent instituted proceedings in New York County to compel appellants to arbitrate and to stay the prosecution by them of an action commenced in Nassau County. Appellants served only a cross notice of motion (purporting to be a special appearance) attacking the validity of the service of the petition and jurisdiction. We affirm the determinations insofar as they hold that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. However, appellants should have leave to address themselves to the merits of the applications before any decision on the motions [627]*627to compel arbitration. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237-a; see Matter of Glatzer [Ins. Research Service], 5 A D 2d 8.) Orders unanimously modified, as a matter of law, without costs, to the extent of deleting therefrom the direction that appellants proceed to arbitration and the petitioners’ motions are remanded to Special Term to permit appellants to interpose answers and affidavits on the merits, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Bastow, JJ.

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

In each of the companion appeals the petitioner-respondent instituted proceedings in New York County to compel appellants to arbitrate and to stay the prosecution by them of an action commenced in Nassau County. Appellants served only a cross notice of motion (purporting to be a special appearance) attacking the validity of the service of the petition and jurisdiction. We affirm the determinations insofar as they hold that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. However, appellants should have leave to address themselves to the merits of the applications before any decision on the motions [627]*627to compel arbitration. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237-a; see Matter of Glatzer [Ins. Research Service], 5 A D 2d 8.) Orders unanimously modified, as a matter of law, without costs, to the extent of deleting therefrom the direction that appellants proceed to arbitration and the petitioners’ motions are remanded to Special Term to permit appellants to interpose answers and affidavits on the merits, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 626, 179 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-fiedler-adler-nyappdiv-1958.