In re the Arbitration between Koppell & Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Koppell & Davis

10 A.D.2d 571, 195 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 571 (In re the Arbitration between Koppell & Davis) 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 Koppell & Davis, 10 A.D.2d 571, 195 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, without costs. The stay of arbitration is vacated and arbitration is to proceed before the same arbitrators as made the original award. On a prior appeal in this matter (Matter of Koppell [Davis], 8 A D [572]*5722d, 612) we wrote as follows: “Any dispute incident to compliance with the award may be properly the subject of further arbitration, but that question is not yet reached.” We have now reached the question. There is a dispute incident to compliance with the award. This dispute stems from the original controversy — one which the parties agreed to arbitrate. It should, therefore, be decided by arbitration. If the dispute were one which had its genesis only in the award, the result might be different. Inasmuch as the parties agreed that in the event further arbitration should be decreed the matter be referred to the same arbitrators who made the award, it is so ordered. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, without costs. The stay of arbitration is vacated and arbitration is to proceed before the same arbitrators as made the original award. On a prior appeal in this matter (Matter of Koppell [Davis], 8 A D [572]*5722d, 612) we wrote as follows: “Any dispute incident to compliance with the award may be properly the subject of further arbitration, but that question is not yet reached.” We have now reached the question. There is a dispute incident to compliance with the award. This dispute stems from the original controversy — one which the parties agreed to arbitrate. It should, therefore, be decided by arbitration. If the dispute were one which had its genesis only in the award, the result might be different. Inasmuch as the parties agreed that in the event further arbitration should be decreed the matter be referred to the same arbitrators who made the award, it is so ordered. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 571, 195 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-koppell-davis-nyappdiv-1960.