Thomas Nelson & Sons v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas Nelson & Sons v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 951, 265 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 951 (Thomas Nelson & Sons v. Harper & Row, Publishers, 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

Thomas Nelson & Sons v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 951, 265 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 4, 1965, dismissing as moot the application of appellants Thomas Nelson & Sons and Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., for a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs or without disbursements, and the application granted to the extent of staying the arbitration as against said appellants only. After the stay application was made, respondents conceded that appellants were not required to arbitrate with them. However, appellants were two of the parties to whom the demand for arbitration was addressed, and they are entitled to the protection of a judicial determination that respondents may not demand arbitration of them. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 4, 1965, dismissing as moot the application of appellants Thomas Nelson & Sons and Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., for a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs or without disbursements, and the application granted to the extent of staying the arbitration as against said appellants only. After the stay application was made, respondents conceded that appellants were not required to arbitrate with them. However, appellants were two of the parties to whom the demand for arbitration was addressed, and they are entitled to the protection of a judicial determination that respondents may not demand arbitration of them. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 951, 265 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-nelson-sons-v-harper-row-publishers-inc-nyappdiv-1965.