Hull Dye & Print Works, Inc. v. Riegel Textile Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1971
• Citation: Hull Dye & Print Works, Inc. v. Riegel Textile Corp., 325 N.Y.S.2d 782, 37 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
• Parties: HULL DYE & PRINT WORKS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. RIEGEL TEXTILE CORPORATION, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 782

325 N.Y.S.2d 782

37 A.D.2d 946

HULL DYE & PRINT WORKS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. RIEGEL TEXTILE CORPORATION, Respondent-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Nov. 16, 1971.

R. W. Adler, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.

D. L. Kreindler, New York City, for respondent-respondent.

Before STEVENS, P.J., and CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN, McNALLY and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 27, 1971, denying stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and petitioner's application to stay arbitration is granted. Respondent-respondent shall recover of petitioner-appellant $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal.

The contract contains the following provision:

'(14) Any controversy arising under or in relation to the contract or any modification thereof may be settled by arbitration or by suit in any Court having jurisdiction, as the Mill shall direct. Arbitration shall be held in the City of New York in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the rules then obtaining of the American Arbitration Association. The parties consent to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and to the Courts of the State of Connecticut, as the Mill shall elect. Process notice of motion, or other applications to the Court or a judge thereof or any notice in connection with the arbitration proceeding may be served within or without the State of New York or Connecticut by registered or certified mail or by personal service, provided a reasonable time for appearance is allowed * * *'

Special Term denied the application for a stay of arbitration upon the ground that copies or letters annexed to respondent's papers showed that petitioner, through its attorneys, had participated in the arbitration.

The clause pursuant to which Riegel sought to institute arbitration proceedings is not a contract for arbitration of controversies but rather a grant to Hull of a unilateral right to arbitrate. Neither party is required to arbitrate; Hull because the agreement gives it the option for arbitrating or litigating; Riegel because the agreement is not mutually binding and enforceable. Section 7501, CPLR, King Records, Inc. v. Brown, 21 A.D.2d 593, 252 N.Y.S.2d 988; Re Silvers, 14 N.Y.S.2d 820. See also Dwyer v. Biddle, 274 App.Div. 903, 83 N.Y.S.2d 138; Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co., Inc., 5 Misc.2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876, aff'd. 3 A.D.2d 1002...