In re the Arbitration between Franz Rosenthal, Inc. & Tannhauser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Franz Rosenthal, Inc. & Tannhauser

279 A.D. 902, 111 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5249

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 902 (In re the Arbitration between Franz Rosenthal, Inc. & Tannhauser) 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 Franz Rosenthal, Inc. & Tannhauser, 279 A.D. 902, 111 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

We think the time limited for submission was thirty days [903]*903after the hearings were closed, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The last agreement stipulated the application of such rules. Furthermore, we think the hearings were not closed until July 31, 1951, which was within the thirty-day period. This view is confirmed by the requests of the tribunal clerk for additional data, which extended the closing date until July 31, 1951. Since the parties agreed to arbitrate under the rules of the association it was for the arbitrators to determine the procedural limits of the submission. Orders unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to confirm the award granted, without costs. Settle orders on notice. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Van Voorhis, Shientag and Foster, JJ.

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

We think the time limited for submission was thirty days [903]*903after the hearings were closed, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The last agreement stipulated the application of such rules. Furthermore, we think the hearings were not closed until July 31, 1951, which was within the thirty-day period. This view is confirmed by the requests of the tribunal clerk for additional data, which extended the closing date until July 31, 1951. Since the parties agreed to arbitrate under the rules of the association it was for the arbitrators to determine the procedural limits of the submission. Orders unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to confirm the award granted, without costs. Settle orders on notice. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Van Voorhis, Shientag and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 902, 111 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-franz-rosenthal-inc-tannhauser-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack