In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Donath

New York Supreme Court

In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Donath

22 Misc. 2d 1056, 205 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1436

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 Misc. 2d 1056 (In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Donath) 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 Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Donath, 22 Misc. 2d 1056, 205 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1436 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Bernard Botein, J.

The claim of the respondent that the petitioner should not have been allowed to select another arbitrator after the arbitrator selected by him had resigned is without merit in view of the provisions of rule 7 of the Arbitration Rules of the National Federation of Textiles, Inc., pursuant to which the arbitration was to be held. There is likewise no merit to the claim of the respondent that • the selection of the third arbitrator should have been submitted to Rosen and Bronstein after Bronstein had been selected to take the place of Alpren.

The attack upon the qualifications of the third arbitrator must be overruled. The latter announced at the very outset of the hearings that he had done some business with the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent made no effort to ascertain the extent of the business which had been done by the third arbitrator with the petitioner, as he could have done, and chose to accept the third arbitrator without further investigation. Furthermore, there is an insufficient showing on the whole record that the dealings between the third arbitrator and the petitioner were sufficiently extensive to constitute ground for disqualification, even if the attorney for the respondent had not waived his right to objection on that ground. Nor has the respondent established to the court’s satisfaction his claim that the selection of Hatch Textile as the testing agency is ground for vacatur of the award because of the work which Hatch had done for peti[1057]*1057tioner and because of bis alleged friendly relations with the president of the petitioner.

The objections raised by the respondent to the tests applied by the arbitrators in determining whether the goods were washable are overruled in view of the fact that counsel for the respondent agreed at the hearing that the arbitrators were to decide “ without any intervention on our part whatsoever ” on the question of washability “ and even the kind of tests you want made.” Counsel stated that the arbitrators “ shall be the sole judges of that ” and that “ we shall abide by the results which shall be performed by such persons as you may designate.”

As to the attack upon the disinterestedness of the National Federation of Textiles, pursuant to the rules of which the arbitration was conducted, it need only be observed that counsel for the respondent raised no such point until after the hearings before the arbitrators and the making of an award unfavorable to the respondent. The facts relied upon must have been known to counsel for the respondent prior to the commencement of the hearings.

The motion to confirm the award is granted and the cross motion to vacate the same is denied. Settle order.

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

Bernard Botein, J.

The claim of the respondent that the petitioner should not have been allowed to select another arbitrator after the arbitrator selected by him had resigned is without merit in view of the provisions of rule 7 of the Arbitration Rules of the National Federation of Textiles, Inc., pursuant to which the arbitration was to be held. There is likewise no merit to the claim of the respondent that • the selection of the third arbitrator should have been submitted to Rosen and Bronstein after Bronstein had been selected to take the place of Alpren.

The attack upon the qualifications of the third arbitrator must be overruled. The latter announced at the very outset of the hearings that he had done some business with the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent made no effort to ascertain the extent of the business which had been done by the third arbitrator with the petitioner, as he could have done, and chose to accept the third arbitrator without further investigation. Furthermore, there is an insufficient showing on the whole record that the dealings between the third arbitrator and the petitioner were sufficiently extensive to constitute ground for disqualification, even if the attorney for the respondent had not waived his right to objection on that ground. Nor has the respondent established to the court’s satisfaction his claim that the selection of Hatch Textile as the testing agency is ground for vacatur of the award because of the work which Hatch had done for peti[1057]*1057tioner and because of bis alleged friendly relations with the president of the petitioner.

The objections raised by the respondent to the tests applied by the arbitrators in determining whether the goods were washable are overruled in view of the fact that counsel for the respondent agreed at the hearing that the arbitrators were to decide “ without any intervention on our part whatsoever ” on the question of washability “ and even the kind of tests you want made.” Counsel stated that the arbitrators “ shall be the sole judges of that ” and that “ we shall abide by the results which shall be performed by such persons as you may designate.”

As to the attack upon the disinterestedness of the National Federation of Textiles, pursuant to the rules of which the arbitration was conducted, it need only be observed that counsel for the respondent raised no such point until after the hearings before the arbitrators and the making of an award unfavorable to the respondent. The facts relied upon must have been known to counsel for the respondent prior to the commencement of the hearings.

The motion to confirm the award is granted and the cross motion to vacate the same is denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Misc. 2d 1056, 205 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-knickerbocker-textile-corp-donath-nysupct-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack