Legal Opinion
In re Dandy Dress, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 14, 1942PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPecora, J.
Petitioner moves to compel respondents to submit certain controversies to arbitration. There is no question here as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, nor as to the fact that the controversies are properly arbitrable under the contract. Respondents claim that petitioner has waived its right to compel arbitration. It appears that an action was brought by the respondent Acme, in December, 1939, in this court, upon a complaint alleging a single cause of action. Issue was joined by petitioner by the service of an answer containing denials, set-offs and a counterclaim. No request for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of Zimmerman v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Matter of Haupt v. RoseNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Nagy v. Arcas Brass & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Short v. National Sport Fashions, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Parsons & Whittemore, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
3Cited by2 opinions
- Charles J. Frank, Inc. v. Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
- Denihan v. DenihanNew York Court of Appeals · 1974