TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Arbitration Between Broadway-40th Street Corp. & President & Directors of Manhattan Co.

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Broadway-40th Street Corporation, Appellant, and President and Directors of Manhattan Company, Respondent

In re the Arbitration Between Broadway-40th St. Corp. & President & Directors of Manhattan Co., 71 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 16, 1947
Judges
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Citations
71 N.E.2d 451296 N.Y. 1651947 N.Y. LEXIS 961

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Section 1460 of the Civil Practice Act provides that an arbitration award, to be entitled to enforcement under article 84 of the Civil Practice Act, must be subscribed by the arbitrators “ within the time limited in the submission or contract, if any ”. In the present case it is undisputed that no steps initiating arbitration were taken until after expiration of the dates specified in the lease provision for the making of the arbitration award, and there is no claim that the parties agreed to extend the time for rendering the award or that the objection was waived. No valid award could be made in such circumstances, and petitioner therefore is not entitled to an order directing arbitration (cf.

Johnson v. Crawford, 212 Pa. 502 ;

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 143 F. 2d 1015 ; Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, p. 523). We agree with the Appellate Division that section 1452 of the Civil Practice Act has no application where, as here, the contractual provisions for arbitration have expired by their own terms.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughean, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacheb, Dye and Fttld, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1966: 11970: 11973: 11977: 11979: 11980: 21981: 11987: 12003: 119662026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. R. E. Bean Construction Co. v. Middlebury Associates & Middlebury Developers, Inc.428 A.2d 306 (Vt. 1980)
  2. Brandon v. Hines439 A.2d 496 (D.C. 1981)
  3. Batson Yarn & Fabrics MacHinery Goup, Inc. v. Saurer-Allma GmbH-Allgauer Maschinenbau311 F. Supp. 68 (D.S.C. 1970)
  4. Brick Tp. Mun. Util. Auth. v. Diversified RB & T. Construction Co.409 A.2d 806 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
  5. Anderson v. Nichols359 S.E.2d 117 (W. Va. 1987)
  6. White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp.860 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Most recent

  1. White Const. Co., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp.860 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
  2. Anderson v. Nichols359 S.E.2d 117 (W. Va. 1987)
  3. Brandon v. Hines439 A.2d 496 (D.C. 1981)
  4. Bean Const. v. MIDDLEBURY, ETC.428 A.2d 306 (Vt. 1980)
  5. R. E. Bean Construction Co. v. Middlebury Associates & Middlebury Developers, Inc.428 A.2d 306 (Vt. 1980)
  6. Brick Tp. Mun. Util. Auth. v. Diversified RB & T. Construction Co.409 A.2d 806 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 143 F.2d 1015 (4th Cir. 1944) 20
Johnson v. Crawford, 61 A. 1103 (Pa. 1905) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list