Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Selly
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Arbitration Between Astoria Medical Group & Health Insurance Plan (N.Y. 1962)
- In re the Arbitration between Astoria Medical Group & Health Insurance Plan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- In re the Arbitration Between Lipschutz & Gutwirth (N.Y. 1952)
- Mobil Oil Indonesia Inc. v. Asamera Oil (Indonesia) Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- In re the Arbitration between Ballantine Books, Inc. & Capital Distributing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
- In re the Arbitration between Staklinski & Pyramid Electric Co. (N.Y. 1959)
- In re the Arbitration between Linwood & Sherry (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Diamond v. latzer (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- In re the Arbitration between De Nicola & Polcini (New York Supreme Court 1956)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The removal of the arbitrator was within the discretion of the Special Term. The exercise of that discretion was approved by the Appellate Division and we are required to presume that all questions of fact were there determined in favor of the respondent (Civ. Prac. Act, § 603). We are not able to say that the courts below abused their discretion.
Our conclusion is that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the third question certified answered in the affirmative, it being unnecessary to answer the other questions.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse and to deny the motion to remove- the arbitrator, Pomerantz. The parties concede his honesty and ability. No charge is made against him of bias, prejudice or interest as to the controversy to be arbitrated. After he had been regularly appointed arbitrator, he was removed, solely because he holds and had expressed certain social, economic and political views. Those views are not vicious, antisocial or unlawful. They are held by great numbers of other good citizens, including judges, high and low. They are not grounds for removing or disqualifying an arbitrator, any more than they would be grounds for removing or disqualifying a judge. The imposition of such tests is to me abhorrent and there is no legal precedent for it. Assuming the court had discretion, that discretion was here abused.
Loughran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Thacher, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Desmond, J., dissents in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.