Lehman v. Ostrovsky
| Decision Date | 17 April 1934 |
| Parties | LEHMAN v. OSTROVSKY et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Proceeding by Max Lehman against Walter G. Ostrovsky and the All-Asia Products Corporation for an order directing an arbitration to proceed. From an order of the Appellate Division, First Department, affirming order of Special Term for petitioner (-- App. Div. --, 269 N. Y. S. 940), the All-Asia Products Corporation appeals.
Orders reversed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
David Ray Bernstein, of New York City, for appellant.
Charles C. Lamm, of New York City, for respondent.
Petitioner trades in furs in New York city. All-Asia Products Corporation is a domestic corporation located in New York city. A contract was entered into, for the account of Walter G. Ostrovsky, a foreign seller, between All-Asia Products Corporation, importers, and Max Lehman, buyer, for the purchase of 2,000 Raw Western Yellow Marmot skins to be shipped from China. The contract provides:
‘If merchandise is not up to description same is subject to New York Arbitration under the rules of the American Fur Merchants Association.’ ‘All-Asia Products Corp. guarantees the award, if any.’
A dispute arose. Lehman requested arbitration. The All-Asia Products Corporation refused to arbitrate. Lehman applied to the court for an order compelling it to proceed to arbitration. The motion was granted. The justice granting the order said:
The order was affirmed by a divided court, two justices dissenting.
Appellant contends that appellant never agreed to arbitrate; that the contract to arbitrate was made by the All-Asia Corporation for the account of Ostrovsky and that its agreement to guarantee the award is wrongly construed as an agreement on its part of arbitrate as to the amount of the award. Any other construction is at variance with plain language. No one is under a duty to resort to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisser v. International Bank
...55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583; Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., supra. 8 The libelants relied below upon Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N.Y. 130, 190 N.E. 208; In re Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Co., 288 N.Y. 270, 42 N.E.2d 38; and General Commodities Corp. v. Hyman-Michaels Co., 9 Ci......
-
Wolf v. Gruntal & Co., Inc.
...536 (1984) ("No one is under a duty to resort to arbitration unless by clear language he has so agreed.") (quoting Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N.Y. 130, 132, 190 N.E. 208 (1934)). III CONCLUSION Although Wolf incorrectly represents that the district court ousted or impeded arbitral jurisdictio......
-
New York Mirror v. Potoker
...it is well established that an express agreement to arbitrate clearly assented to is required and will not be implied. Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N.Y. 130, 190 N.E. 208; Matter of Kelley, 240 N.Y. 74, 147 N.E. 363; Eagar Const. Corp. v. Ward Foundation Corp., 255 App.Div. 291, 7 N.Y.S.2d The ......
-
J.F. Fitzgerald Const. Co. v. Southbridge Water Supply Co.
...N.E. 347;Morgan v. Murdough, 216 Mass. 502, 104 N.E. 455;Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co. 252 N.Y. 284, 169 N.E. 386;Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N.Y. 130, 190 N.E. 208. The petitioner sought compensation in excess of that fixed by the contract because of changes in the contract prices, which......