In re the Arbitration between Saddler Textiles, Inc. & Winston Uniform Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Saddler Textiles, Inc. & Winston Uniform Corp.

39 A.D.2d 845, 332 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4429

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

DecidedJune 1, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 845 (In re the Arbitration between Saddler Textiles, Inc. & Winston Uniform 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 Saddler Textiles, Inc. & Winston Uniform Corp., 39 A.D.2d 845, 332 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme -Court, New York County, entered. June 21, 1971, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the application of petitioner-respondent to confirm the arbitrators’ award denied, without prejudice to a confirmation application properly made. The demand for arbitration, subject of this appeal, not having been resisted, the hearing thereof proceeded, and resulted in the award attempted to be confirmed herein. Service of the application for confirmation (CPLR 7510) was made by ordinary mail upon the attorney for respondent-appellant who had appeared at the hearing; on the return of the application, counsel forthwith advised the court that he no longer had authority to represent respondent-appellant in the arbitration, and suggested direct service upon his former client. The suggestion was not followed. The application for confirmation having been the first court proceeding (see CPLR 7502, subd. [a]), it was incumbent upon petitioner to effect service of the notice thereof “in the same manner as a summons in an action” (CPLR 403, subd. [c]). Obviously this was not done, and the proceeding should have been dismissed as not properly before the court. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme -Court, New York County, entered. June 21, 1971, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the application of petitioner-respondent to confirm the arbitrators’ award denied, without prejudice to a confirmation application properly made. The demand for arbitration, subject of this appeal, not having been resisted, the hearing thereof proceeded, and resulted in the award attempted to be confirmed herein. Service of the application for confirmation (CPLR 7510) was made by ordinary mail upon the attorney for respondent-appellant who had appeared at the hearing; on the return of the application, counsel forthwith advised the court that he no longer had authority to represent respondent-appellant in the arbitration, and suggested direct service upon his former client. The suggestion was not followed. The application for confirmation having been the first court proceeding (see CPLR 7502, subd. [a]), it was incumbent upon petitioner to effect service of the notice thereof “in the same manner as a summons in an action” (CPLR 403, subd. [c]). Obviously this was not done, and the proceeding should have been dismissed as not properly before the court. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 845, 332 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-saddler-textiles-inc-winston-uniform-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack