In re the Arbitration between Norelli & B & H Furs, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Norelli & B & H Furs, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 957

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 957 (In re the Arbitration between Norelli & B & H Furs, 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 Norelli & B & H Furs, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint, which was supplied by plaintiff on our request, pleads due performance of all conditions of the contract. Defendant, in its answer, denies this and specifies the respects in which it claims violations of such conditions, including wrongfully calling a strike. Obviously, therefore, the subject of the counterclaim is in issue, and if any damage has resulted from an improper calling of a strike, this claim should be litigated in the action. We need not consider theoretical questions as to waiver of arbitration rights any further than the facts of this case require. Here plaintiff necessarily tendered the issue of full performance on its part of all the terms of the contract, and the counterclaim is properly interposed.

The order should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent herein.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

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

Per Curiam.

The complaint, which was supplied by plaintiff on our request, pleads due performance of all conditions of the contract. Defendant, in its answer, denies this and specifies the respects in which it claims violations of such conditions, including wrongfully calling a strike. Obviously, therefore, the subject of the counterclaim is in issue, and if any damage has resulted from an improper calling of a strike, this claim should be litigated in the action. We need not consider theoretical questions as to waiver of arbitration rights any further than the facts of this case require. Here plaintiff necessarily tendered the issue of full performance on its part of all the terms of the contract, and the counterclaim is properly interposed.

The order should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent herein.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-norelli-b-h-furs-inc-nyappdiv-1950.