In re the Arbitration between Hauck & Rochester Taxicab Co.

127 Misc. 759, 217 N.Y.S. 2, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1052
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 759 (In re the Arbitration between Hauck & Rochester Taxicab 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 Hauck & Rochester Taxicab Co., 127 Misc. 759, 217 N.Y.S. 2, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1052 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Opinion

Rodenbeck, J.

This is a proceeding to confirm the report of arbitrators appointed January 15, 1925, under a contract dated October 16, 1922, for the erection of a garage and office building. Two of the arbitrators reported an award in favor of the plaintiff November 28, 1925. The arbitrator nominated by the Rochester Taxicab Company and Fred J. Zorn did not join in the report. It is claimed by the latter that the third arbitrator selected by those [760]*760nominated by each side resigned orally and thereafter hearings were had between him and the arbitrator nominated by Hauck, of which the arbitrator nominated by the Rochester Taxicab Company and Zorn had no notice, and in which he did not participate. There is enough in the record to satisfy the court that the arbitrators imperfectly executed the arbitration and that a mutual, final and definite award as required by law was not made. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The award, therefore, should be vacated. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The court may in its discretion direct a rehearing by the arbitrators if the time within which the submission requiring the award to be made has not expired. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.) The award was required to be made before the expiration of the year 1925 and the alleged report was so made but the matter cannot be resubmitted within the time specified in the submission and, therefore, a rehearing by the same arbitrators cannot be had. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1457.)

The award is set aside and the matter remitted for submission to new arbitrators under the contract. So ordered.

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

Related

State v. Koonce
214 A.2d 428 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)
Reardon v. Allen
213 A.2d 26 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)
Gilbert v. Unsatisfied Claim, Etc., Bd.
204 A.2d 204 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Johnson v. Christ Hospital
202 A.2d 874 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Ench Equipment Corp. v. Enkay Foods, Inc.
129 A.2d 313 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 Misc. 759, 217 N.Y.S. 2, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-hauck-rochester-taxicab-co-nysupct-1926.