In re the Arbitration between National Bank of North America & Haar

74 A.D.2d 849, 425 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 849 (In re the Arbitration between National Bank of North America & Haar) 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 National Bank of North America & Haar, 74 A.D.2d 849, 425 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 31, 1979, which permanently stayed arbitration with respect to Herbert Haar, Ltd., and awarded all petitioners costs in the proceeding. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated October 12, 1977, which granted a stay as to all petitioners except Herbert Haar, Ltd., as to which a trial was directed. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the words "permanently stayed”, the following: "except that arbitration shall proceed against Herbert Haar, Ltd. for the employment period prior to January 1, 1977, which period was covered by the written arbitral clause in the employment contract then in effect”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to [850]*850appellant. Given the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have permitted petitioner to assert the Statute of Frauds for the first time six months after trial. Nevertheless, the evidence sustains the finding that no valid agreement, oral or written, was executed extending appellant’s prior written employment contract so that the arbitration clause therein is inapplicable. Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corp., as a nonparty to the arbitration agreement, may not be compelled to arbitrate, although we do not reach the question of whether it may be derivatively liable. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

County of Onondaga v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co.
192 A.D.2d 1108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.2d 849, 425 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-national-bank-of-north-america-haar-nyappdiv-1980.