Acadia Co. v. Edlitz
| Decision Date | 25 February 1960 |
| Citation | 165 N.E.2d 411,197 N.Y.S.2d 457,7 N.Y.2d 348 |
| Parties | , 165 N.E.2d 411, 39 Lab.Cas. P 66,273 In the Matter of the Arbitration between ACADIA COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, and Irving EDLITZ, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Adler and Ruben Schwartz, New York City, for appellant.
Arthur J. Katzman, New York City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of affirmance by the Appellate Division, First Department, by a divided court, of an order by Special Term which denied appellant's motion to compel arbitration between the parties and to stay an action in the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan.
The essential facts are undisputed. Under a written agreement respondent was employed by appellant for a period from July 22, 1957 to January 22, 1958, and the agreement provided for arbitration of 'any question, difference or controversy (arising) as to interpretation or performance of any of the foregoing provisions'. It is conceded that prior to its expiration the contract was orally renewed and respondent's employment extended six months. Subsequently the employment was terminated and a dispute arose over whether the contract had been breached, and as to wages due thereunder.
Special Term denied the motion on the theory that no binding agreement to arbitrate was created by the oral renewal since the renewal agreement was not reduced to writing (Civil Practice Act, § 1449). We reach a different conclusion. By orally renewing the written agreement the parties in effect adopted it as an integral part of the new arrangement, modified only by an extension of the time of employment. No other logical meaning can be attached to the expression 'oral renewal', an expression used by the respondent himself. There was, therefore, a sufficient compliance with section 1449 of the Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldron v. Goddess
...the provisions of the expired agreement, including the clause providing for arbitration of disputes (see Matter of Acadia Co., [Edlitz], 7 N.Y.2d 348, 197 N.Y.S.2d 457, 165 N.E.2d 411). All concur except SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSS, J. who dissent in a memorandum by SULLIVAN, J.P. as This is a......
-
Schubtex, Inc. v. Allen Snyder, Inc.
...We would note also that this doctrine has been held to be applicable to arbitration agreements. (E. g., Matter of Acadia Co. (Edlitz), 7 N.Y.2d 348, 197 N.Y.S.2d 457, 165 N.E.2d 411; Matter of Helen Whiting, Inc. (Trojan Textile Corp.), 307 N.Y. 360, 121 N.E.2d 367.) However, a determinatio......
-
Hayes v. Biedermann Reif Hoenig & Ruff, PC
... ... See Vann v. Kreindler, Relkin & Goldberg, 54 N.Y.2d 936 (981); see also Acadia Co. v. Edlitz, 7 N.Y.2d 348, 349 (1960). Thus, the claims against BRHR, as well as the individuals, are arbitrable. Finally, Hayes' ... ...
-
Jones Apparel Group, Inc. v. Petit
...We would note also that this doctrine has been held to be applicable to arbitration agreements. (E. g., Matter of Acadia Co. (Edlitz), 7 N.Y.2d 348, 197 N.Y.S.2d 457, 165 N.E.2d 411; Matter of Helen Whiting, Inc. (Trojan Textile Corp.), 307 N.Y. 360, 121 N.E.2d 367.) However, a determinatio......
-
12.16 - B. EXIstence Of Valid Agreement To Arbitrate
...7501. An oral extension of a written agreement to arbitrate is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a writing. Acadia Co. v. Edlitz, 7 N.Y.2d 348, 197 N.Y.S.2d 457 (1960).[5506] . 145 A.D.3d 602, 603, 42 N.Y.S.3d 821 (Mem.) (1st Dep’t 2016). [5507] . United Fed’n of Teachers v. Bd. of E......