Legal Opinion · Dissent
Schlaifer v. Sedlow
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 14, 1980Published
1DissentMeyer, J.
I agree that there is a difference between the general release of a claim under a *186contract and the cancellation of a contract, but cannot agree to the result reached by the majority because it ignores the fact that the demand for arbitration in the instant case refers not to one but to two contracts, one of which, unless we are flatly to overrule Matter of Minkin (Halperin) (304 NY 617), Matter of Binger (Thatcher) (304 NY 627), and Matter of Bronston (Glassman) (10 NY2d 158), has been canceled. The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be modified by directing that the judgment…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- In re the Arbitration between Minkin & HalperinNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- In re the Arbitration between Binger & ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Hughes v. Eddy Valve Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- In re the Arbitration between Schlaifer & KaiserNew York Supreme Court · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.