In re the Arbitration between Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. & Potomac Iron Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. & Potomac Iron Works, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 895, 347 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 895 (In re the Arbitration between Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. & Potomac Iron Works, 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 Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. & Potomac Iron Works, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 895, 347 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 5, 1972, granting, in part, petitioner’s application to stay arbitration as to certain items (referred to as “Quotes”), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying such motion as to Quotes 3455 and 2651. Except as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Both of these items clearly fall within the ambit of the contractual provision for arbitration. The disputed issues raised regarding the validity of a reciept and whether or not an effective limitation has been imposed on an ordered “extra” relate to the merits of the controversy and are for the arbitrators alone to determine. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lane, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 5, 1972, granting, in part, petitioner’s application to stay arbitration as to certain items (referred to as “Quotes”), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying such motion as to Quotes 3455 and 2651. Except as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Both of these items clearly fall within the ambit of the contractual provision for arbitration. The disputed issues raised regarding the validity of a reciept and whether or not an effective limitation has been imposed on an ordered “extra” relate to the merits of the controversy and are for the arbitrators alone to determine. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Lane, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 895, 347 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-psaty-fuhrman-inc-potomac-iron-works-nyappdiv-1973.