In re the Arbitration between Miller Art Co. & Firestone

9 Misc. 2d 282, 167 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 11, 1957
StatusPublished

This text of 9 Misc. 2d 282 (In re the Arbitration between Miller Art Co. & Firestone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court 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 Miller Art Co. & Firestone, 9 Misc. 2d 282, 167 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Opinion

Harold A. Stevens, J.

This is an application to stay arbitration proceedings demanded by respondents. The arbitration clause in the contract involved (par. 12) is phrased in broad comprehensive language. It embraces “ any difference, claim or matter in dispute arising between or among them out of this agreement or connected herewith ’ ’. It seems clear, by the language used, that the parties intended to dispose of all of their disputes by arbitration. This should be enforced (Matter of River Brand Rice Mills v. Latrobe Brewing Co., 305 N. Y. 36). There is no dispute presented as to the making of the contract. Petitioners seek to interpret the terms of the arbitration clause, and the intent of the parties under the contract, to a holding that the matters in dispute are not arbitrable. Since the papers disclose that there is a dispute, that there is a contract to arbitrate, and a refusal to arbitrate, the matters of fact and of law and issues are all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrators (Matter of Crosett [Mt. Vernon Housing Auth.], 275 App. Div. 1051; Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.], 289 N. Y. 76, 80; Matter of Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N .Y. 199; Matter of Spectrum Fabrics Corp. [Main St. Fabrics], 285 App. Div. 710, affd. 309 N. Y. 709; Matter of Carlin Constr. Co. [Bartley Bros. Constr. Corp.], 280 App. Div. 801, affd. 305 N. Y. 784).

Petitioners’ application to stay arbitration proceedings is therefore denied. Settle order.

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

Related

Mtr. of River Brand Rice Mills v. Latrobe Brew. Co.
110 N.E.2d 545 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)
Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)
43 N.E.2d 817 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
In re the Arbitration between P. J. Carlin Construction Co.
280 A.D. 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
In re the Arbitration between Spectrum Fabrics Corp. & Main Street Fashions, Inc.
285 A.D. 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Misc. 2d 282, 167 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-miller-art-co-firestone-nysupct-1957.