Kallus v. Ideal Novelty & Toy Co.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1944 |
| Citation | 55 N.E.2d 737,292 N.Y. 459 |
| Parties | KALLUS v. IDEAL NOVELTY & TOY CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Proceeding in the matter of the arbitration of controversies between Joseph L. Kallus and the Ideal Novelty & Toy Company. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, entered October 18, 1943, 266 App.Div. 607, 44 N.Y.S.2d 265, affirming an order of the Special Term, Wenzel, J., denying a motion for a permanent stay of the arbitration proceeding, the defendant appeals.
Orders reversed and motion for stay granted. George Lion Cohen, Paul Martinson, and Murray H. Paloger, all of New York City, for appellant.
Walter S. Beck and Leon Alexandroff, both of New York City, for respondent.
The parties were formerly employer and employee and will be referred to as such for convenience' sake. The terms of the employment were set forth in a letter written by the employer upon which the employee indorsed his acceptance on February 11, 1939. The material parts thereof are the following:
‘2. Your services to the Corporation shall consist of designing, developing and supervising the manufacture and sale, and also selling a new line of Dolls, Toys and Novelties not manufactured heretofore by us * * *. In addition thereto, you will supervise the manufacture and sale, and you will also sell Toys, Dolls and other Novelties manufactured by us in various departments of our business * * *.
‘3. In consideration of the services you are to render exclusively to us, your salary is to be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per week * * *.
‘4. It is understood between us that whatever copyrights, names, design patents or other patents, license rights, common law rights that you now own and whatever developments you make for us on the basis of such rights shall be recognized as your property. During the time that you are in our employ, we are to have the sole and exclusive rights to use the same without any compensation to you, save the salary above mentioned. This also includes any pending license agreements. * * *
‘7. Upon termination of this employment for whatever reason, we shall have the right to continue to manufacture under all the rights, patents, etc. stated in Paragraph 4, upon payment to you of a royalty of three percent (3%) of our net wholesale selling price for a period of time to be arbitrated. It is also understood that you personally shall have the right to use all these patents and other rights enumerated in Paragraph 4 in your own business, but you shall not have the right to license any other manufacturer to use them. * * *
This contract came to an end on January 31, 1942. Asserting that the employer had thereafter taken advantage of the rights listed in paragraph 4, the employee on April 6, 194o, demanded arbitration of a dispute as to whether he was entitled, for a period of time to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Bank Supply Co. v. International Broth. of Bookbinders, Local No. 243, Mexico, Mo.
... ... are open to judicial cognizance". [ Kellus v. Ideal ... Novelty & Toy Co., 292 N.Y. 459, l. c. 462.] Since no ... such contractual rights or ... ...
-
Transpacific Transport Corp. v. Sirena Shipping Co., S.A.
...of an action'. It is enough that the dispute is of a nature which is cognizable in an action in a court (Matter of Kallus [Ideal Novelty & Toy Co.], 292 N.Y. 459, 55 N.E.2d 737; Matter of Friedland, 1 A.D.2d 129, 131, 148 N.Y.S.2d 328, The seller's reliance on Matter of Burkin (Katz), 1 N.Y......
-
New York Central R. Co. v. Erie R. Co.
...612, affirmed 309 N.Y . 709, 128 N.E.2d 416). The court cannot impose such an agreement upon the parties (Kallus v. Ideal Novelty & Toy Co., 292 N.Y. 459, 55 N.E.2d 737). I go along with the propositions of law as thus generally stated by Erie. It is when they are sought to be applied to th......
-
Cont. Bk. Supply Co. v. Int. Bhd. of Bookbinders
...upon parties, and under our statutes arbitrators can deal only with controversies that are open to judicial cognizance". [Kellus v. Ideal Novelty & Toy Co., 292 N.Y. 459, l.c. 462.] Since no such contractual rights or obligations existed, as between the parties no controversy then existed f......