In re the Arbitration between My-Mill Co. & Halpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between My-Mill Co. & Halpert

283 A.D. 1055, 131 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6296

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

DecidedJune 21, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1055 (In re the Arbitration between My-Mill Co. & Halpert) 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 My-Mill Co. & Halpert, 283 A.D. 1055, 131 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

The arbitrators’ award, on its face, would appear to allow the so-called “counterclaim” as against My-Mill Co., Inc., only. The title of this award makes no mention of George Feinberg or Arthur Feinberg, although they had been made parties to the arbitration by respondents’ demand of July 9, 1953. Respondents themselves evidently entertained the view that this award had limited operative effect, for in entering judgment they stated that their claim against the Feinbergs and My-Mill Co., Inc., was allowed “ against My-Mill Co. Inc. only ”, Furthermore, appellants assert that at no time during the arbitration was any request made of the arbitrators that relief be granted against the Feinbergs. While there is substance to respondents’ contention that the arbitrators intended to allow their award against the individuals as well as My-Mill Co., Inc., the language they employed is equivocal. The arbitrators’ intention is not so clearly indicated upon this record to warrant a holding that the omission of the individual names of the Feinbergs was a mere oversight in the preparation of the award. The order of Special Term is unanimously modified to the extent of remanding the matter to the original arbitrators, for the sole purpose of indicating the party or parties against whom the so-called counterclaim is allowed and, as so modified, affirmed. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

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

The arbitrators’ award, on its face, would appear to allow the so-called “counterclaim” as against My-Mill Co., Inc., only. The title of this award makes no mention of George Feinberg or Arthur Feinberg, although they had been made parties to the arbitration by respondents’ demand of July 9, 1953. Respondents themselves evidently entertained the view that this award had limited operative effect, for in entering judgment they stated that their claim against the Feinbergs and My-Mill Co., Inc., was allowed “ against My-Mill Co. Inc. only ”, Furthermore, appellants assert that at no time during the arbitration was any request made of the arbitrators that relief be granted against the Feinbergs. While there is substance to respondents’ contention that the arbitrators intended to allow their award against the individuals as well as My-Mill Co., Inc., the language they employed is equivocal. The arbitrators’ intention is not so clearly indicated upon this record to warrant a holding that the omission of the individual names of the Feinbergs was a mere oversight in the preparation of the award. The order of Special Term is unanimously modified to the extent of remanding the matter to the original arbitrators, for the sole purpose of indicating the party or parties against whom the so-called counterclaim is allowed and, as so modified, affirmed. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1055, 131 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-my-mill-co-halpert-nyappdiv-1954.