In re the Arbitration between United Kingdom Treasury & Supply Delegation & National Radio Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between United Kingdom Treasury & Supply Delegation & National Radio Co.

37 A.D.2d 953, 326 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 953 (In re the Arbitration between United Kingdom Treasury & Supply Delegation & National Radio Co.) 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 United Kingdom Treasury & Supply Delegation & National Radio Co., 37 A.D.2d 953, 326 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 21, 1971, denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the application for a stay is granted. Petitioner-appellant shall recover of respondent-respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The record shows quite clearly that there is no contractual relationship between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner never agreed to arbitration with relation to respondent. Moreover, from the documentary evidence in the record, it is equally clear that respondent is not an assignee of the contract entered into between petitioner and International Technical Products, Inc. '(ITP). Quite to the contrary, the record shows that on May 31, 1966, petitioner entered into a contract with ITP under which petitioner was to purchase certain equipment from ITP. Thereafter, on October 28, 1966, ITP entered into a contract with respondent pursuant to which ITP agreed that respondent would be the manufacturer and supplier to fulfill the terms of the purchase order between ITP and petitioner. That contract specifically referred to respondent as “ subcontractor for the manufacture of the items ”, On November 17, 1966, ITP and petitioner modified their original agreement. This modification once again referred to respondent as ITP’s subcontractor. And it is to be further noted that there were subsequent modifications entered into between ITP and petitioner. It therefore appears that there was never any assignment of the contract by ITP to respondent. Rather, it is evident that the relationship between ITP and petitioner continued and that respondent was- merely a subcontractor engaged to manufacture the items required. Concur—-Markewieh, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, McNally 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 on June 21, 1971, denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the application for a stay is granted. Petitioner-appellant shall recover of respondent-respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The record shows quite clearly that there is no contractual relationship between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner never agreed to arbitration with relation to respondent. Moreover, from the documentary evidence in the record, it is equally clear that respondent is not an assignee of the contract entered into between petitioner and International Technical Products, Inc. '(ITP). Quite to the contrary, the record shows that on May 31, 1966, petitioner entered into a contract with ITP under which petitioner was to purchase certain equipment from ITP. Thereafter, on October 28, 1966, ITP entered into a contract with respondent pursuant to which ITP agreed that respondent would be the manufacturer and supplier to fulfill the terms of the purchase order between ITP and petitioner. That contract specifically referred to respondent as “ subcontractor for the manufacture of the items ”, On November 17, 1966, ITP and petitioner modified their original agreement. This modification once again referred to respondent as ITP’s subcontractor. And it is to be further noted that there were subsequent modifications entered into between ITP and petitioner. It therefore appears that there was never any assignment of the contract by ITP to respondent. Rather, it is evident that the relationship between ITP and petitioner continued and that respondent was- merely a subcontractor engaged to manufacture the items required. Concur—-Markewieh, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 953, 326 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-united-kingdom-treasury-supply-delegation-nyappdiv-1971.