In re the Arbitration between Timeplex, Inc. & Racal-Milgo Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Timeplex, Inc. & Racal-Milgo Ltd.

87 A.D.2d 753, 449 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16178

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 6, 1982·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.), entered October 28, 1981, granting Timeplex’ motion for disclosure to aid in arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with costs. For the following reasons, Timeplex’ motion for disclosure to aid in arbitration (CPLR 3102, subd [e]) should have been denied. First, disclosure under the afore-mentioned section may only be sought after arbitration has been commenced. Timeplex has yet to commence arbitration. Second, a court will only order disclosure in extraordinary circumstances after arbitration has commenced. (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406.) Timeplex has failed to show any extraordinary circumstances to warrant judicial intervention even .if arbitration had been commenced. Third, the papers indicate that Timeplex has adequate knowledge to frame a claim in arbitration for breach of the distributorship agreement. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Lupiano, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.), entered October 28, 1981, granting Timeplex’ motion for disclosure to aid in arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with costs. For the following reasons, Timeplex’ motion for disclosure to aid in arbitration (CPLR 3102, subd [e]) should have been denied. First, disclosure under the afore-mentioned section may only be sought after arbitration has been commenced. Timeplex has yet to commence arbitration. Second, a court will only order disclosure in extraordinary circumstances after arbitration has commenced. (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406.) Timeplex has failed to show any extraordinary circumstances to warrant judicial intervention even .if arbitration had been commenced. Third, the papers indicate that Timeplex has adequate knowledge to frame a claim in arbitration for breach of the distributorship agreement. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Lupiano, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between Timeplex, Inc. & Racal-Milgo Ltd., 87 A.D.2d 753, 449 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

87 A.D.2d 753 (In re the Arbitration between Timeplex, Inc. & Racal-Milgo Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related