Case Name: In the Matter of Arbitration between Stanley Gold, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Henry E. Bechtel, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Robert A. Meixell, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1960-07-05
Citations: 11 A.D.2d 772
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Arbitration between Stanley Gold, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Henry E. Bechtel, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Robert A. Meixell, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Arbitration between Stanley Gold, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Henry E. Bechtel, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant. In the Matter of Arbitration between Robert A. Meixell, Respondent, and American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc., Appellant.

Opinion:
In proceedings by three former employees, residents of Pennsylvania, to stay their former corporate employer from going forward with actions against them in the Court of Common Pleas in the State of Pennsylvania, based on the employees' breach of written employment contracts which contain provisions for arbitration, the corporation appeals from so much of three orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 10, 1960, as restrains it from prosecuting said actions or any other actions upon such contract, until arbitration has been had between the parties of the claims which are the subject matter of the Pennsylvania actions. It is not disputed that the controversies involved in the Pennsylvania actions are covered by the arbitration provisions of the written contracts between the parties. The Special Term held that petitioners are entitled to a stay under section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.