In re the Arbitration between New Amsterdam Casualty Co. & Sablotsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between New Amsterdam Casualty Co. & Sablotsky

22 A.D.2d 770, 253 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2849

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 770 (In re the Arbitration between New Amsterdam Casualty Co. & Sablotsky) 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 New Amsterdam Casualty Co. & Sablotsky, 22 A.D.2d 770, 253 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 12, 1964, denying petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements to respondents. Petitioner did not even make a pretense, either in the papers it submitted at Special Term or in the brief presented to this court, to deal with respondents’ detailed recital of affirmative and acquiescent statements and activities on its part upon which respondents base their contention that petitioner waived its right to a preliminary hearing or trial. Concur—Botein, P, J,, Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ,

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

Order, entered August 12, 1964, denying petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration proceedings, unanimously affirmed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements to respondents. Petitioner did not even make a pretense, either in the papers it submitted at Special Term or in the brief presented to this court, to deal with respondents’ detailed recital of affirmative and acquiescent statements and activities on its part upon which respondents base their contention that petitioner waived its right to a preliminary hearing or trial. Concur—Botein, P, J,, Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 770, 253 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-new-amsterdam-casualty-co-sablotsky-nyappdiv-1964.