5700, 5800, 5900 Arlington Avenue Associates v. Chartier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

5700, 5800, 5900 Arlington Avenue Associates v. Chartier

211 A.D.2d 429, 621 N.Y.S.2d 860

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 429 (5700, 5800, 5900 Arlington Avenue Associates v. Chartier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

5700, 5800, 5900 Arlington Avenue Associates v. Chartier, 211 A.D.2d 429, 621 N.Y.S.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s Westcroft’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The IAS Court’s findings in a previous order denying a stay of arbitration do not have a preclusive effect on plaintiff on the issue of Westcroft’s alleged ultra vires conduct in executing the collective bargaining agreement on plaintiff’s behalf without prior approval. Contrary to Westcroft’s argument, the LAS Court never found that plaintiff ratified Westcroft’s execution of that agreement. Thus, the IAS Court properly denied Westcroft’s motion for summary judgment inasmuch as issues of fact exist with regard to whether, as alleged in the complaint, Westcroft violated its management agreement with plaintiff. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s Westcroft’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The IAS Court’s findings in a previous order denying a stay of arbitration do not have a preclusive effect on plaintiff on the issue of Westcroft’s alleged ultra vires conduct in executing the collective bargaining agreement on plaintiff’s behalf without prior approval. Contrary to Westcroft’s argument, the LAS Court never found that plaintiff ratified Westcroft’s execution of that agreement. Thus, the IAS Court properly denied Westcroft’s motion for summary judgment inasmuch as issues of fact exist with regard to whether, as alleged in the complaint, Westcroft violated its management agreement with plaintiff. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 429, 621 N.Y.S.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/5700-5800-5900-arlington-avenue-associates-v-chartier-nyappdiv-1995.