Newmark v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newmark v. Harris

284 A.D. 962, 135 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 962 (Newmark v. Harris) 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

Newmark v. Harris, 284 A.D. 962, 135 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

The first three of the five partnership agreements referred to in the complaint contain provision for the submission of all disputes to arbitration; the last two agreements do not contain such arbitration provision. It would [963]*963seem that defendant Harris should be entitled to a complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action based on violations under each of the separate partnership agreements between the parties. It is difficult and impractical, as a matter of pleading to assert a defense based on a right to arbitrate with respect to part of one cause of action. Order unanimously reversed and the motion to separately state and number granted, with $20 costs to the appellant. Present — Dore, J. P., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

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

The first three of the five partnership agreements referred to in the complaint contain provision for the submission of all disputes to arbitration; the last two agreements do not contain such arbitration provision. It would [963]*963seem that defendant Harris should be entitled to a complaint separately stating and numbering the causes of action based on violations under each of the separate partnership agreements between the parties. It is difficult and impractical, as a matter of pleading to assert a defense based on a right to arbitrate with respect to part of one cause of action. Order unanimously reversed and the motion to separately state and number granted, with $20 costs to the appellant. Present — Dore, J. P., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 962, 135 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newmark-v-harris-nyappdiv-1954.