History
  • No items yet
midpage
Schafran & Finkel, Inc. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.
280 N.Y. 687
| NY | 1939
|
Check Treatment

Motion for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. There is no stay preventing defendant from proceeding according to the provisions of the Arbitration Law. Neither is there any intimation in the opinion that there was, or was not, a contract. We were dealing simply with the pleadings as they were. (See 280 N.Y. 164.) *Page 688

Case Details

Case Name: Schafran & Finkel, Inc. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 11, 1939
Citation: 280 N.Y. 687
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.