Jet Set Investments, Inc. v. Dubl-Duck Imports, Inc.

165 A.D.2d 703, 564 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 13, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 703 (Jet Set Investments, Inc. v. Dubl-Duck Imports, 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
Jet Set Investments, Inc. v. Dubl-Duck Imports, Inc., 165 A.D.2d 703, 564 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered January 22, 1990, which granted judgment in favor of respondent dismissing the petition for a stay of arbitration, and which directed the parties to proceed to arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements. The appeal from the order of the same court entered on or about October 31, 1989 is dismissed as academic.

Respondent Dubl-Duck Imports, Inc., and Dubl-Duck Pet Products, Inc. (Pet Products), which is not a party to this action, entered into a contract on March 3, 1986, by which respondent obtained the exclusive right to purchase merchandise to be sold by Pet Products. The March 3, 1986 contract contained, in addition, a broad arbitration clause. Thereafter, on February 1, 1987, respondent, Pet Products, and petitioner Jet Set Investments, Inc. entered into a "modification and settlement” agreement which contained no arbitration clause, but which by its terms incorporated the March 3, 1986 agreement, although modifying and superceding the March 3, 1986 agreement in various ways not here relevant.

While petitioner was not a signatory to the March 3, 1986 agreement, it was a signatory to the February 1, 1987 agreement. Petitioner’s contention that it is not bound to arbitrate the present disputes must therefore be rejected, since the February 1 agreement incorporated the arbitration clause of the March 3 agreement. We perceive no ambiguity in the respective agreements, which are clearly and expressly worded and leave no doubt that arbitration of the present dispute was contemplated and intended by the parties.

Concur —Ross, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Related

Metropolitan Arts & Antiques Pavilion, Ltd. v. Rogers Marvel Architects, P. L. L. C.
287 A.D.2d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 A.D.2d 703, 564 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jet-set-investments-inc-v-dubl-duck-imports-inc-nyappdiv-1990.