In re the Arbitration between Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. & Tantleff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. & Tantleff

13 A.D.2d 488, 212 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11808

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 488 (In re the Arbitration between Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. & Tantleff) 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 Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. & Tantleff, 13 A.D.2d 488, 212 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on February 7, 1961 denying motion to stay arbitration unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent-respondent. It is not necessary to reach the question whether there was a waiver of the right to stay the arbitration proceeding by reason of participation in such proceeding, or to determine the precise scope of the rule applied in Matter of De Laurentiis (12 A D 2d 467). It is quite clear that the demand raises issues all of which are arbitrable within article IX of the agreement, including those with respect to interest and whether there was compliance, or excuse for noncompliance, with the conditions to the limited [489]*489arbitration provided by article III. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order entered on February 7, 1961 denying motion to stay arbitration unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent-respondent. It is not necessary to reach the question whether there was a waiver of the right to stay the arbitration proceeding by reason of participation in such proceeding, or to determine the precise scope of the rule applied in Matter of De Laurentiis (12 A D 2d 467). It is quite clear that the demand raises issues all of which are arbitrable within article IX of the agreement, including those with respect to interest and whether there was compliance, or excuse for noncompliance, with the conditions to the limited [489]*489arbitration provided by article III. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 488, 212 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-mayfair-super-markets-inc-tantleff-nyappdiv-1961.