Regal Extract Co. v. H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Regal Extract Co. v. H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc.

50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 924 (Regal Extract Co. v. H. Schoenfeld & Sons, 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

Regal Extract Co. v. H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc., 50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to vacate an award made in arbitration against petitioner and in favor of respondent H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc., in which proceeding said respondent cross-moved to confirm the award and to direct that judgment be entered in its behalf, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 22, 1975, in favor of H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc., upon an order of the same court, dated August 7, 1975, which denied the application [925]*925and granted the cross motion. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc. The sales note sent by the broker A.A. Sayia & Company, Inc., which contained a provision for arbitration, was sufficient to make that provision binding on both parties to this appeal (see Matter of Gera Fabrics Div. Peter Fuller Enterprises [Liberty Fabrics of N. Y.] 14 Misc 2d 489, affd 6 AD2d 1001). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to vacate an award made in arbitration against petitioner and in favor of respondent H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc., in which proceeding said respondent cross-moved to confirm the award and to direct that judgment be entered in its behalf, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 22, 1975, in favor of H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc., upon an order of the same court, dated August 7, 1975, which denied the application [925]*925and granted the cross motion. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent H. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc. The sales note sent by the broker A.A. Sayia & Company, Inc., which contained a provision for arbitration, was sufficient to make that provision binding on both parties to this appeal (see Matter of Gera Fabrics Div. Peter Fuller Enterprises [Liberty Fabrics of N. Y.] 14 Misc 2d 489, affd 6 AD2d 1001). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 924, 377 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regal-extract-co-v-h-schoenfeld-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack