In re the Arbitration between Nager Electric Co., Inc. & Weisman Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Nager Electric Co., Inc. & Weisman Construction Corp.

29 A.D.2d 939, 289 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4182

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

DecidedApril 25, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 939 (In re the Arbitration between Nager Electric Co., Inc. & Weisman Construction Corp.) 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 Nager Electric Co., Inc. & Weisman Construction Corp., 29 A.D.2d 939, 289 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered November 7, 1966 unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting petitioner-appellant’s motion staying arbitration as to item “f ” of the demand. As so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While the court will not consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute (CPLR 7501), it does not follow that because the ease is in court that there is in fact a dispute. (But see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. V. Civ. Prac., par. 7501.20.) The instant demand seeks arbitration, in subdivision “ f ”, of “ All other disputes, if any, which remain unresolved among the parties ”. An arbitration tribunal may not award relief based upon any such catchall demand. The demand must state the specific nature of the existing controversy to be arbitrated. Concur — ■ Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered November 7, 1966 unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting petitioner-appellant’s motion staying arbitration as to item “f ” of the demand. As so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While the court will not consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute (CPLR 7501), it does not follow that because the ease is in court that there is in fact a dispute. (But see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. V. Civ. Prac., par. 7501.20.) The instant demand seeks arbitration, in subdivision “ f ”, of “ All other disputes, if any, which remain unresolved among the parties ”. An arbitration tribunal may not award relief based upon any such catchall demand. The demand must state the specific nature of the existing controversy to be arbitrated. Concur — ■ Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 939, 289 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-nager-electric-co-inc-weisman-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack