Osaka Trading Co. v. Tokyo International Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osaka Trading Co. v. Tokyo International Trading Co.

147 A.D.2d 409, 538 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1974

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 409 (Osaka Trading Co. v. Tokyo International Trading 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

Osaka Trading Co. v. Tokyo International Trading Co., 147 A.D.2d 409, 538 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about August 15, 1988, which, inter alia, directed defendants Tokyo International Trading Company, Inc., American ZEP, Inc., and Perry to proceed to arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete such direction, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[410]*410All parties to the appeal are in agreement that the above-named defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement, and thus cannot be compelled to participate in the arbitration directed by IAS. We modify the order on appeal only to correct this apparent oversight. Concur — Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about August 15, 1988, which, inter alia, directed defendants Tokyo International Trading Company, Inc., American ZEP, Inc., and Perry to proceed to arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete such direction, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[410]*410All parties to the appeal are in agreement that the above-named defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement, and thus cannot be compelled to participate in the arbitration directed by IAS. We modify the order on appeal only to correct this apparent oversight. Concur — Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 409, 538 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osaka-trading-co-v-tokyo-international-trading-co-nyappdiv-1989.