Alsy Corp. v. Gindel

197 A.D.2d 492, 602 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 28, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 492 (Alsy Corp. v. Gindel) 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
Alsy Corp. v. Gindel, 197 A.D.2d 492, 602 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about February 24, 1993, which granted petitioner’s motion for reargument and renewal and upon reargument and renewal adhered to its prior decision, entered November 16, 1992, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ motion to compel arbitration with respect to petitioner, Alsy Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of said Court and Justice entered November 16, 1992 unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the February 24, 1993 order, without costs.

In light of the obvious interrelation between the instant Employment Agreements, Certificate of Incorporation, and Termination Agreements, and since the arbitration clauses contained in the Termination Agreements pertain to "any dispute or disagreement arising out of or in connection with” the Termination Agreements, the instant controversy concerning petitioner’s alleged obligation to indemnify respondents for expenses incurred in the defense of claims asserted against them in the Surrey action, falls within the broad arbitration clauses (see, Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co., 37 NY2d 91). Indeed, there is no question that there is "a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of [493]*493the dispute and the general subject matter of the underlying contract[s]” (supra, at 96).

We also agree with the IAS Court that the instant controversy is ripe for arbitration even though the Surrey action has not been finally adjudicated. Significant attorneys’ fees have already been incurred by respondents in the defense of the Surrey lawsuit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Tong v. S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC
16 Misc. 3d 401 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Domansky v. Little
2 A.D.3d 132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Arbitration between IndustriMatematik AB & Fisher Scientific International, Inc.
266 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 A.D.2d 492, 602 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alsy-corp-v-gindel-nyappdiv-1993.