In re the Arbitration between Milton C. Blum, Inc. & C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Milton C. Blum, Inc. & C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc.

23 A.D.2d 543, 256 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 543 (In re the Arbitration between Milton C. Blum, Inc. & C. Itoh & Co. (America) 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 Milton C. Blum, Inc. & C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc., 23 A.D.2d 543, 256 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Older entered April 9, 1964 directing that arbitration proceedings be permanently stayed, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the issue of the authority of Martin Gross & Go., as broker, to bind the petitioner-respondent as its agent to agreement for arbitration contained in sales note. The affidavits submitted on the motion present a conflict as to the authority of the said agent to act on behalf of the petitioner-respondent. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Staley, JJ.

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

Older entered April 9, 1964 directing that arbitration proceedings be permanently stayed, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the issue of the authority of Martin Gross & Go., as broker, to bind the petitioner-respondent as its agent to agreement for arbitration contained in sales note. The affidavits submitted on the motion present a conflict as to the authority of the said agent to act on behalf of the petitioner-respondent. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Eager and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 543, 256 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-milton-c-blum-inc-c-itoh-co-nyappdiv-1965.