In re the Arbitration between Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. & Clarke Baridon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. & Clarke Baridon, Inc.

7 A.D.2d 627, 179 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 627 (In re the Arbitration between Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. & Clarke Baridon, 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 Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. & Clarke Baridon, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 627, 179 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Specifically excluded from the arbitration clause were disputes for which provision for determination was otherwise made in the agreement. Since such a provision for determination of disputes as to the claims made by the subcontractor herein is included in another part of the agreement, there is no contract to arbitrate them. Hence, a stay of the arbitration was properly granted. We do not consider whether appellant has any alternate remedy. All we decide is that the matter in dispute is not arbitrable under the express terms of the contract. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Bastow, JJ.

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

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Specifically excluded from the arbitration clause were disputes for which provision for determination was otherwise made in the agreement. Since such a provision for determination of disputes as to the claims made by the subcontractor herein is included in another part of the agreement, there is no contract to arbitrate them. Hence, a stay of the arbitration was properly granted. We do not consider whether appellant has any alternate remedy. All we decide is that the matter in dispute is not arbitrable under the express terms of the contract. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 627, 179 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-merritt-chapman-scott-corp-clarke-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack