Case Name: In the Matter of the Arbitration between Samuel Bronston, Appellant, and Barnett Glassman, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-07-07
Citations: 10 N.Y.2d 158
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration between Samuel Bronston, Appellant, and Barnett Glassman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 158–161

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Arbitration between Samuel Bronston, Appellant, and Barnett Glassman, Respondent.
Argued May 24, 1961;
decided July 7, 1961.
Jesse Moss for appellant.
I. There is no existing contract under which arbitration may be demanded. (Matter of Minkin [Halperin], 279 App. Div. 226, 304 N. Y. 617; Matter of Sanders, 280 App. Div. 781.) II. The case is ruled by Matter of Minkin (Halperin) (279 App. Div. 226, 304 N. Y. 617) and not by Matter of Stein-Tex (Ide Mfg. Co.) (9 A D 2d 288). III. An arbitrable dispute does not come into existence merely because respondent says there is one. (Matter of International Assn. of Machinists [Cutler-Hammer], 271 App. Div. 917; Lucio v. Curran, 2 N Y 2d 157.)
Herman Chaityn and Edwin M. Slote for respondent.
The motion to stay this arbitration should be denied because there is an existing contract to arbitrate; there are disputes between the parties thereunder which must be arbitrated, and Bronston refused to arbitrate. (Matter of Stein-Tex [Ide Mfg. Co.], 19 Misc 2d 123, 9 A D 2d 288; Matter of Compagnie Francaise des Petroles, 279 App. Div. 851; Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.], 289 N. Y. 76; Matter of City Sewing Center [Portman Sewing Mach. Co.], 279 App. Div. 784, 279 App. Div. 893, 304 N. Y. 986; Matter of Kahn [National City Bank], 284 N. Y. 515; Klein Coat Corp. v. Peretz, 4 Misc 2d 341; Matter of Potoker [Brooklyn Eagle], 2 N Y 2d 553; Matter of Croset [Mount Vernon Housing Auth.], 275 App. Div. 1051; Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 U. S. 574; Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp., 363 U. S. 593; Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564; Towner v. Berg, 5 A D 2d 481; Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506; Simon v. Simon, 274 App. Div. 447; Farnham v. Farnham, 204 App. Div. 573; Celmer v. Feinborough Homes, 253 App. Div. 832; Matter of Amerotron Corp. [Shapiro Woolen Co.], 3 A D 2d 899; Matter of Kellogg Co. [Monsanto Chem. Co.], 9 A D 2d 744; Matter of Minkin [Halperin], 279 App. Div. 226; Matter of Sanders, 280 App. Div. 781; Lucio v. Curran, 2 N Y 2d 157; Matter of Helen Whiting, Inc. [Trojan Textile Corp.], 307 N. Y. 360.)

Opinion:
Fuld, J.
We all agree that, where a general release is unequivocal and unambiguous, the mere assertion that there is a dispute concerning its meaning does not create an arbitrable issue since, under such circumstances, it may not be said that a bona fide dispute exists. (See Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 334; Matter of Binger [Thatcher], 304 N. Y. 627; Matter of Minkin [Halperin], 304 N. Y. 617.) However, in view of the context in which the releases under consideration were drawn, it is clear that they are sufficiently dubious in content and meaning to require that the matter be submitted to arbitrators. This is, indeed, accentuated and confirmed by the circumstance that the judges of both the Appellate Division and of this court have given variant constructions to the documents.
The stay of arbitration was properly denied and, accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.