Jonathan Logan, Inc. v. Stillwater Worsted Mills, Inc.
| Citation | 24 N.Y.2d 898,301 N.Y.S.2d 636,249 N.E.2d 477 |
| Parties | , 249 N.E.2d 477 In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Controversy between JONATHAN LOGAN, INC., Appellant, and STILLWATER WORSTED MILLS, INC., Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 31 A.D.2d 208, 295 N.Y.S.2d 853.
Wien, Lane, Klein & Malkin, New York City (Ralph W. Felsten, Robert A. Machleder, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Hahn, Hessen, Margolis & Ryan, New York City (Melvin Beinart, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
An application was made for stay of arbitration.
The Supreme Court at Special Term, William Lyman, J., entered a judgment in New York County denying the application and the applicant appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order of affirmance and held that where the person upon whom was served a notice of intention to arbitrate procured an order to show cause within 10 days of receipt of notice directing that application would be brought on for hearing at a date more than 10 days from notice and a copy of order together with papers on which the same was granted was served on other party 16 days after receipt of notice of intention, application to stay was not timely under rule requiring party served with notice to apply to stay arbitration within 10 days after such service.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals the petitioner claimed to have made timely application to stay arbitration pursuant to rule by obtaining order to show cause containing immediate stay of arbitration within 10 days after service of notice of intention to arbitrate and demand for arbitration.
Order affirmed, without costs, on the prevailing opinion at the Appellate Division.
All concur except FULD, C.J., and BURKE, J., who dissent and vote to reverse and remit to Special Term on the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division.
KEATING, J., taking no part.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Nikko Securities Co. Intern., Inc.
... ... D.2d 52, 469 N.Y.S.2d 728 (1st Dep't 1983), and Gold Mills, Inc. v. Pleasure Sports, Inc., 85 A.D.2d 527, 444 ... " 2 McKinney's Session Laws (1973) at 2056 (citing Jonathan Logan, Inc. v. Stillwater Worsted Mills, 31 A.D.2d 208, ... ...
-
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Gilbert
... ... 87, 89, 275 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3; cf Matter of Jonathan Logan, Inc. (Stillwater Worsted Mills) 31 A.D.2d ... ...
-
Pictet Funds (Europe) S.A. v. Emerging Managers Grp., L.P.
...entities. 62. See generally Jonathan Logan, Inc. v. Stillwater Worsted Mills, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 208 (1st Dep't 1968), aff'd, 24 N.Y.2d 898 (1969). 63. See, e.g., LJL 33rd Street Assocs., LLC v. Pitcairn Props., Inc., 725 F.3d 184, 192 (2d Cir. 2013); United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Bertan......
-
Seneca Falls Central School Dist., Application of
... ... CPLR ( Matter of the Arbitration between Jonathan Logan, Inc. and Stillwater Worsted Mills, Inc., ... ...
-
Chapter 3
.... In the Matter of the Arbitration between Jonathan Logan and Stillwater Worsted Mills, 31 A.D.2d 208, 295 N.Y.S.2d 853 (1968), aff’d 24 N.Y.2d 898, 301 N.Y.S.2d 636, 249 N.E.2d 477 (1968).[629] . 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-307.[630] . In re Arbitration between Maye and Bluestein, 40 N.Y.2d 113, 386 N.Y......