In re the Arbitration between Kallus & Ideal Novelty & Toy Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Kallus & Ideal Novelty & Toy Co.

266 A.D. 607, 44 N.Y.S.2d 265, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 440, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3630

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D. 607 (In re the Arbitration between Kallus & Ideal Novelty & Toy Co.) 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 Kallus & Ideal Novelty & Toy Co., 266 A.D. 607, 44 N.Y.S.2d 265, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 440, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

That part of the agreement which provides that the period of time for which the license is to continue and royalties are to be paid shall be determined by arbitration is valid and enforcible. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 214 N. Y. 488, 495, 496; People ex rel. U. Ins. Co. v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310 ; Smith v. Rector, etc., of St. Philip’s Church, 107 N. Y. 610, 620; Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract P. Co., 198 App. Div. 644, 650, 651; Weir v. Barker, 104 App. Div. 112, 122,123; Van Beuren v. Wotherspoon, 12 App. Div. 421, 164 N. Y. 368, 378; cf. Matter of Fletcher, 237 N. Y, 440, at pp. 445, 448, 450.) [609]*609This provision of the agreement presents a controversy which is precedent to the other issues sought to "be arbitrated between the parties, and comes within the terms of the amendment (L. 1941, ch. 288) to section 1448 of the Civil Practice Act. That amendment appears to have been enacted for the express purpose of subjecting such questions to arbitration. Prior to the amendment they were not arbitrable. (Matter of Culbertson v. Kem Playing Cards, Inc., 259 App. Div. 263, 264; Matter of American Insurance Co., 208 App. Div. 168, 170, 171; Matter of Fletcher, supra, pp. 440,444-447.) Matter of Stern (285 N. Y. 239), decided five days after the effective date of this amendment, does not relate thereto and is readily distinguished. That case merely holds a submission to arbitration under the statute must embrace a controversy “ which may be the subject of an action,” and that the question of allowance to be made by the husband for the support of his wife and child may not, except as an incident to a matrimonial action, be made the subject of an action.

The order denying motion to stay, an arbitration proceeding should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

That part of the agreement which provides that the period of time for which the license is to continue and royalties are to be paid shall be determined by arbitration is valid and enforcible. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 214 N. Y. 488, 495, 496; People ex rel. U. Ins. Co. v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310 ; Smith v. Rector, etc., of St. Philip’s Church, 107 N. Y. 610, 620; Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract P. Co., 198 App. Div. 644, 650, 651; Weir v. Barker, 104 App. Div. 112, 122,123; Van Beuren v. Wotherspoon, 12 App. Div. 421, 164 N. Y. 368, 378; cf. Matter of Fletcher, 237 N. Y, 440, at pp. 445, 448, 450.) [609]*609This provision of the agreement presents a controversy which is precedent to the other issues sought to "be arbitrated between the parties, and comes within the terms of the amendment (L. 1941, ch. 288) to section 1448 of the Civil Practice Act. That amendment appears to have been enacted for the express purpose of subjecting such questions to arbitration. Prior to the amendment they were not arbitrable. (Matter of Culbertson v. Kem Playing Cards, Inc., 259 App. Div. 263, 264; Matter of American Insurance Co., 208 App. Div. 168, 170, 171; Matter of Fletcher, supra, pp. 440,444-447.) Matter of Stern (285 N. Y. 239), decided five days after the effective date of this amendment, does not relate thereto and is readily distinguished. That case merely holds a submission to arbitration under the statute must embrace a controversy “ which may be the subject of an action,” and that the question of allowance to be made by the husband for the support of his wife and child may not, except as an incident to a matrimonial action, be made the subject of an action.

The order denying motion to stay, an arbitration proceeding should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D. 607, 44 N.Y.S.2d 265, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 440, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-kallus-ideal-novelty-toy-co-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack