Marshall Ray Corp. v. C. Haedke & Co.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Citation | 16 N.Y.2d 967,265 N.Y.S.2d 284 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 212 N.E.2d 771 MARSHALL RAY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. C. HAEDKE & CO., Inc., Respondent. |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 24 A.D.2d 668, 261 N.Y.S.2d 134.
Action was brought to recover damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement of April 10, 1964 whereby plaintiff, a clothing manufacturer, agreed to purchase from defendant, which engaged in the business of selling fabrics, 17,500 yards of certain fabric, and whereby the defendant agreed to give the plaintiff the exclusive right to use that fabric to manufacture boys' and men's outerwear and sportswear from sizes 12 through men's sizes.
The defendant made a motion, which was brought on as a motion to dismiss the complaint, and which was considered as a motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration of the differences between the parties. The defendant, in support of its motion, submitted an alleged written contract, which bore the date of April 10, 1964. The alleged written contract was on the defendant's purchase order form, was signed by the plaintiff's purchasing agent, and provided that the plaintiff was to purchase 17,500 yards of the fabric in question, and that the plaintiff was to have an exclusivity for men's and students' outerwear and sportswear from sizes 12 through men's sizes, and that any controversy in relation to the contract or any modification thereof could be settled only by arbitration, and that the contract should become binding if the plaintiff should sign and return to the defendant a signed copy of the contract. The defendant also submitted a letter of complaint written to it on September 25, 1964 by the plaintiff's president stating that defendant had promised in writing to protect the plaintiff 'from size 12 up.'
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Rensselaer County, Sidney F. Foster, J., entered an order granting the motion of the defendant and directing that arbitration be had of any and all claims, demands, and disputes, which arose in connection with purchase of fabric during the month when alleged written contract was entered into, and the two preceding months, and arising under the alleged written contract relative to the purchase. The Special Term held that the alleged written contract providing for arbitration was binding and that no evidence was provided to raise a substantial issue as to the alleged oral agreement between the parties,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heimlich v. Charlton Lithographing, Inc.
...arbitration, even though the notice of motion requested only a stay of this action, cannot be questioned. Marshall Ray Corp. v. C. Haedke & Co., 16 N.Y.2d 967, 265 N.Y.S.2d 284; A. Burgart, Inc. v. Foster-Lipkins Corp., 63 Misc.2d 930, 313 N.Y.S.2d 831, affd. 38 A.D.2d 779, 328 N.Y.S.2d 856......
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Griesenbeck
...mere fact that this order was made on a motion in a pending action does not impair its finality. (See Marshall Ray Corp. v. Haedke & Co., 16 N.Y.2d 967, 265 N.Y.S.2d 284, 212 N.E.2d 771; Agress v. Turkmenilli, 303 N.Y. 797, 799, 103 N.E.2d 900; Gang v. Gang, 253 N.Y. 356, 358, 171 N.E. 568,......
-
Caridad Int'l Rest. Inc. v. Oviedo, Index No.: 308986/10
...complaint may be treated by the court as an application to permanently stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. Marshall Ray Corp. v. C. Haedke & Co., 16 N.Y.2d 967 (1965). It is true that a party may be required to arbitrate only those disputes he has agreed to arbitrate. See Banque de ......
- Benware v. Leo F. Benware Creamery