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
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 6, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 A.D.2d 518 (In re the Arbitration between Livingston & Cheney-Frantex, Longford-Weavers, 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 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).

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

Related

In re the Arbitration between Guetta & Raxon Fabrics Corp.
123 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Property Management, Ltd. v. Howasa, Inc.
302 N.E.2d 754 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 A.D.2d 518, 216 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-livingston-cheney-frantex-nyappdiv-1961.