In re the Arbitration between Livingston & Cheney-Frantex, Longford-Weavers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Livingston & Cheney-Frantex, Longford-Weavers, Inc.

14 A.D.2d 518, 216 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9567

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The award is invalid as to Mayar Silk Mills, Inc., not a party to. the contract or the arbitration proceeding. (Matter of Brescia Constr. Co. v. Walart Constr. Co., 264 N. Y. 260.) Moreover, the award is not mutual, final and definite (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 4) in that it fails to state the amount of damages or the basis for computation thereof. (Meyer v. Merritt, 7 A D 2d 917; Matter of Albert J. Pfeiffer, Inc. [Largman, Gray Co.], 22-2 App. Div. 62.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

The award is invalid as to Mayar Silk Mills, Inc., not a party to. the contract or the arbitration proceeding. (Matter of Brescia Constr. Co. v. Walart Constr. Co., 264 N. Y. 260.) Moreover, the award is not mutual, final and definite (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 4) in that it fails to state the amount of damages or the basis for computation thereof. (Meyer v. Merritt, 7 A D 2d 917; Matter of Albert J. Pfeiffer, Inc. [Largman, Gray Co.], 22-2 App. Div. 62.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between Livingston & Cheney-Frantex, Longford-Weavers, Inc., 14 A.D.2d 518, 216 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

14 A.D.2d 518 (In re the Arbitration between Livingston & Cheney-Frantex, Longford-Weavers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related