Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Gerseta Corporation, Petitioner, for a Peremptory Mandamus Order against The Silk Association of America, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-12
Citations: 204 A.D. 861
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Gerseta Corporation, Petitioner, for a Peremptory Mandamus Order against The Silk Association of America, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
First Department,
December, 1922.
In the Matter of the Application of Gerseta Corporation, Petitioner, for a Peremptory Mandamus Order against The Silk Association of America, Respondent.
Mandamus — leave granted petitioner to apply at Special Term for alternative mandamus order to compel respondent to reinstate petitioner to membership in respondent.
Motion by petitioner for leave to apply to the Special Term for the issuance of an alternative mandamus order to compel the Silk Association of America to reinstate the petitioner and to rescind its order suspending the petitioner from membership until it shall consent to arbitrate its differences with the General Silk Company.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The facts in this case are substantially stated in the dissenting opinion in the application of the petitioner for a peremptory writ of mandamus, reported in 200 Appellate Division, at page 890. An appeal was taken from the decision of this court reversing the order for a peremptory writ of mandamus, which appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. [233 N. Y. 544.] Thereafter this petitioner made application to the Special Term for an alternative writ of mandamus, which was denied, and that order was affirmed by this court. [203 App. Div. 896.] As the case now stands, therefore, the respondent passed a resolution suspending the petitioner until it shall arbitrate its differences with the General Silk Company, when we have held that it was not bound to arbitrate those differences, and that holding has been sustained by the Court of Appeals. Upon a reconsideration of this case we are satisfied that the court should allow the petitioner the alternative writ of mandamus, that the issues presented by the respondent's affidavits in opposition to the peremptory writ may be determined. The motion, therefore, should be granted for the petitioner to make application to the Special Term for an alternative order. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Merrell, JJ. Motion granted.