In re the Arbitration between Layton-Blumenthal, Inc.

280 A.D. 135, 111 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 22, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 135 (In re the Arbitration between Layton-Blumenthal, Inc.) 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 Layton-Blumenthal, Inc., 280 A.D. 135, 111 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The burden is upon a party applying to compel another to arbitrate, to establish that there was a plain intent by agreement to limit the parties to that method of deciding disputes. “ No one is under a duty to resort to arbitration unless by clear language he has so agreed ” (Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N. Y. 130, 132). In this case, respondent-appellant bought the goods under spot orders placed with petitioner verbally and entered on its forms. These orders were produced and contained no arbitration clause. Petitioner claims that before delivery of the goods was made it prepared and handed to respondent-appellant formal contracts containing an arbitration clause, which respondent-appellant promised to sign and return. The goods were delivered, however, without these contracts being signed or returned. Respondent-[136]*136appellant contends that no such contracts were submitted for its consideration until after the goods had been delivered and a dispute had arisen as to the quality of the goods, and it then refused to sign the contracts.

We think that petitioner did not sustain the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial issue entitling petitioner to a trial of the making of a contract containing an arbitration clause as required by section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and printing disbursements, the motion denied, and the petition dismissed.

Peck, P. J., Glehhoh, Dobe, Yah Yoorhis and Shiehtag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and printing disbursements to the appellant, the motion denied and the petition dismissed. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Marben Realty Co. v. Sweeney
87 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
In re the Arbitration between Marlene Industries Corp. & Carnac Textiles, Inc.
59 A.D.2d 359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Bona Togs, Ltd. v. Goldstein & Leavy, Inc.
31 Misc. 2d 765 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1961)
In re the Arbitration between Milton L. Ehrlich, Inc. & Unit Frame & Floor Corp.
5 A.D.2d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
In re the Arbitration between Eimco Corp. & Deering, Milliken & Co.
6 Misc. 2d 422 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
In re the Arbitration between Pavia & Co. & Fulton County Silk Mills
284 A.D. 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D. 135, 111 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-layton-blumenthal-inc-nyappdiv-1952.