Blum v. Accurate Chemical & Scientific Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blum v. Accurate Chemical & Scientific Corp.

122 A.D.3d 655, 994 N.Y.S.2d 870

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 2014·No. 2013-02295·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau *656 County (Bucaria, J.), dated January 10, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, that all of the allegations in the complaint were “reasonably and plainly comprehended to be within the scope of the dispute submitted to arbitration,” and that the arbitration award fixing the value of the plaintiff’s stock necessarily determined that there was no dishonesty involved (Wallenstein v Cohen, 45 AD3d 674, 675 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was deprived of a full and fair opportunity during the previous arbitration to litigate the issues raised in this action (see Clemens v Apple, 65 NY2d 746 [1985]; Culpepper v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chambers, J.E, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau *656 County (Bucaria, J.), dated January 10, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established, prima facie, that all of the allegations in the complaint were “reasonably and plainly comprehended to be within the scope of the dispute submitted to arbitration,” and that the arbitration award fixing the value of the plaintiff’s stock necessarily determined that there was no dishonesty involved (Wallenstein v Cohen, 45 AD3d 674, 675 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was deprived of a full and fair opportunity during the previous arbitration to litigate the issues raised in this action (see Clemens v Apple, 65 NY2d 746 [1985]; Culpepper v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chambers, J.E, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Blum v. Accurate Chemical & Scientific Corp., 122 A.D.3d 655, 994 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 655 (Blum v. Accurate Chemical & Scientific Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related