Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky

Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky

190 N.E. 208, 264 N.Y. 130, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1404
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 17, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by94 cases

This text of 190 N.E. 208 (Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 190 N.E. 208, 264 N.Y. 130, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1404 (N.Y. 1934).

Opinion

Pound, Ch. J.

Petitioner trades in furs in New York city. All-Asia Products Corporation is a domestic corporation located in New - York city. A contract was entered into, for the account of Walter G. Ostrovsky, a foreign seller, between All-Asia Products Corporation, importers, and Max Lehman, buyer, for the purchase of 2,000 Raw Western Yellow Marmot skins to be shipped from China. The contract provides:

“ If merchandise is not up to description same is subject to New York Arbitration under the rules of the American Fur Merchants Association.”

“ All-Asia Products Corp. guarantees the award, if any.”

A dispute arose. Lehman requested arbitration. The All-Asia Products Corporation refused to arbitrate. Lehman applied to the court for an order compelling it to proceed to arbitration. The motion was granted. The justice granting the order said: “ The facts are not seriously disputed. The principals are a seller in a foreign land represented by an agent here and a buyer here. The arbitration clause is between the principals but f the *132 award is guaranteed ’ by the agent. To construe the agreement as the agent urges would make it binding only on the buyer, for the seller cannot be brought into the jurisdiction without his consent. Taking into consideration all the circumstances the contract must be construed to mean that the agent would arbitrate and pay the award.”

The order was affirmed by a divided court, two justices dissenting.

Appellant contends that appellant never agreed to arbitrate; that the contract to arbitrate was made by the All-Asia Corporation for the account of Ostrovsky and that its agreement to guarantee the award is wrongly construed as an agreement on its part to arbitrate as to the amount of the award. Any other construction is at variance with plain language. No one is under a duty to resort to arbitration unless by clear language he has so agreed.

The orders should be reversed and the motion for arbitration denied, with costs in all courts and ten dollars costs of motion.

Crane, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., dissents; Kellogg, J., not sitting.

Orders reversed, etc.

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

Related

Stefansky v. Kaufman
2024 NY Slip Op 51496(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Wolf v. Gruntal & Co.
First Circuit, 1995
Kenneth P. Wolf v. Gruntal & Co., Inc.
45 F.3d 524 (First Circuit, 1995)
Jab Industries, Inc. v. Silex S.P.A.
601 F. Supp. 971 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Exchange Mutual Insurance Company v. The Haskell Company, Rogersville Paving Company, Inc. John Mack Pierce and Mack Slaughter
742 F.2d 274 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
In re the Arbitration between Waldron & Goddess
461 N.E.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Schubtex, Inc. v. Allen Snyder, Inc.
399 N.E.2d 1154 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Parsons & Whittemore Contractors Corp.
397 N.E.2d 380 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
H. H. & F. E. Bean, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
67 A.D.2d 1102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re the Arbitration between Marlene Industries Corp. & Carnac Textiles, Inc.
380 N.E.2d 239 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
In re the Arbitration between Marlene Industries Corp. & Carnac Textiles, Inc.
59 A.D.2d 359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Kahn v. Biernbaum
55 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Arbitration between R. H. Macy & Co. & National Sleep Products, Inc.
347 N.E.2d 887 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. Bartlett
49 A.D.2d 117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
S. Kornblum Metals Co. v. Intsel Corp.
47 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Arbitration between National Recreational Products, Inc. & Gans
46 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Yorkshire International, Inc. v. Raytex Fabrics, Inc.
44 A.D.2d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Alexander Enterprises, Inc. v. Ryckwaert
38 A.D.2d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)
In re the Arbitration of Wander Iron Works, Inc. & Wilaka Construction Co.
38 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)
Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Carnaby Knitting Corp.
37 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 N.E. 208, 264 N.Y. 130, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lehman-v-ostrovsky-ny-1934.