In re the Arbitration between Katz & Burkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Katz & Burkin

283 A.D. 1092, 131 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410

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

DecidedJune 21, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 1092 (In re the Arbitration between Katz & Burkin) 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 Katz & Burkin, 283 A.D. 1092, 131 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeals by petitioner from orders in two separate proceedings denying his motions to stay arbitration and granting cross motions to compel arbitration. Order in Proceeding No. 1 modified on the law by providing in the first ordering paragraph that the motion to restrain arbitration be granted as to the first and third items m the demand for arbitration and otherwise denied and by providing in the second ordering paragraph that the cross motion to compel arbitration be granted as to the second item in the demand and otherwise denied. As so modified order affirmed, without costs; petitioner to comply within five days after the entry of the order hereon with the provisions of the third ordering paragraph. Order in Proceeding No. 2 reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and petitioner’s motion for a stay granted and respondents’ cross motion to compel arbitration denied, with $10 costs. The matter of sale of the respective parcels is not within the scope of the arbitration clauses in the two agreements. Under the express provisions of these agreements a sale of the realty can be achieved only by unanimous vote of the parties to the agreement. The arbitration clause does not purport to override the explicit rights accorded in the agreement itself, on a matter of policy. (Matter of Essenson [Upper Queens Med. Group], 307 N. Y. 68.) The question of breach of contractual obligation to repay money advanced by Burkin is, in the language of the arbitration clause an “arbitrable controversy” arising “by reason of the terms of this agreement The matter of procurement of a certificate of occupancy presents no arbitrable controversy. If the corporation is entitled to it, it can be procured by either of the parties as a matter of course. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeals by petitioner from orders in two separate proceedings denying his motions to stay arbitration and granting cross motions to compel arbitration. Order in Proceeding No. 1 modified on the law by providing in the first ordering paragraph that the motion to restrain arbitration be granted as to the first and third items m the demand for arbitration and otherwise denied and by providing in the second ordering paragraph that the cross motion to compel arbitration be granted as to the second item in the demand and otherwise denied. As so modified order affirmed, without costs; petitioner to comply within five days after the entry of the order hereon with the provisions of the third ordering paragraph. Order in Proceeding No. 2 reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and petitioner’s motion for a stay granted and respondents’ cross motion to compel arbitration denied, with $10 costs. The matter of sale of the respective parcels is not within the scope of the arbitration clauses in the two agreements. Under the express provisions of these agreements a sale of the realty can be achieved only by unanimous vote of the parties to the agreement. The arbitration clause does not purport to override the explicit rights accorded in the agreement itself, on a matter of policy. (Matter of Essenson [Upper Queens Med. Group], 307 N. Y. 68.) The question of breach of contractual obligation to repay money advanced by Burkin is, in the language of the arbitration clause an “arbitrable controversy” arising “by reason of the terms of this agreement The matter of procurement of a certificate of occupancy presents no arbitrable controversy. If the corporation is entitled to it, it can be procured by either of the parties as a matter of course. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1092, 131 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-katz-burkin-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack