Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re the Arbitration between Shirley Silk Co. & American Silk Mills, Inc.

In re the Arbitration between Shirley Silk Co. & American Silk Mills, Inc.

260 A.D. 572, 23 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 572 (In re the Arbitration between Shirley Silk Co. & American Silk Mills, 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 Shirley Silk Co. & American Silk Mills, Inc., 260 A.D. 572, 23 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that Granowitz, the arbitrator designated by petitioner-respondent, should have revealed to appellant that fourteen months before the arbitration herein the firm of which he is now and was then president, in another arbitration

[573]*573proceeding, had received an award of over $31,000 from a board of arbitrators of which the president of the petitioner-respondent was one. The failure to disclose this fact requires that this award be set aside. (See Matter of Knickerbocker T. Corp. v. Sheila-Lynn, Inc., 172 Misc. 1015; affd., 259 App. Div. 992.) The parties must proceed to a new arbitration pursuant to the terms of their written agreement.

The order appealed from should, accordingly, be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, the motion to confirm denied, and the motion to vacate the award granted.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, the motion to confirm the award denied, and the motion to vacate the award granted.

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

Related

In re the Arbitration between Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc. & Local 669, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
34 A.D.2d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
In re the Arbitration between Di Stasio & Avallone
27 A.D.2d 726 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
In re the Arbitration between Petroleum Cargo Carriers, Ltd. & Unitas, Inc.
31 Misc. 2d 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
In re the Arbitration between Milliken Woolens, Inc. & Weber Knit Sportswear, Inc.
11 A.D.2d 166 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
In re the Arbitration between Linwood & Sherry
10 Misc. 2d 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
In re the Arbitration between Dukraft Manufacturing Co. & Bear Mill Manufacturing Co.
22 Misc. 2d 1057 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)
In Re the Arbitration Between Lipschutz & Gutwirth
106 N.E.2d 8 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D. 572, 23 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-shirley-silk-co-american-silk-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1940.