Glatstian v. Peller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glatstian v. Peller

16 A.D.2d 631, 226 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260

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

DecidedApril 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 631 (Glatstian v. Peller) 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

Glatstian v. Peller, 16 A.D.2d 631, 226 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on February 15, 1962 denying the motion to stay arbitration and granting the motion to stay the action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. The record reveals that the petitioner participated in the arbitration process to a degree sufficient to bar his present attempt to stay the proceeding. (See Civ. Prac. Act, § 1458; Matter of Iino Shipbuilding Eng. [632]*632Co. [Hellenic Lines], 6 A D 2d 159.) We conclude that Item No. 1 of the demand for arbitration contemplates a determination of the status of Freída Peller as a stockholder. Inasmuch as that is essentially the issue to be tried in the Supreme court action, such action should be stayed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ. [33 Misc 2d —.]

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

Order entered on February 15, 1962 denying the motion to stay arbitration and granting the motion to stay the action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. The record reveals that the petitioner participated in the arbitration process to a degree sufficient to bar his present attempt to stay the proceeding. (See Civ. Prac. Act, § 1458; Matter of Iino Shipbuilding Eng. [632]*632Co. [Hellenic Lines], 6 A D 2d 159.) We conclude that Item No. 1 of the demand for arbitration contemplates a determination of the status of Freída Peller as a stockholder. Inasmuch as that is essentially the issue to be tried in the Supreme court action, such action should be stayed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ. [33 Misc 2d —.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 631, 226 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glatstian-v-peller-nyappdiv-1962.