In re Carl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carl

263 A.D. 887, 32 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7216

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 887 (In re Carl) 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

In re Carl, 263 A.D. 887, 32 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner appeals from an order denying his application for the appointment of an arbitrator. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the application granted, with ten dollars costs. ¡ The parties own a corporation whose voting stock and management are divided between them equally. In a written agreement for the organization of the corporation, they provided that all questions, disputes and controversies between them concerning the policies of the management of its affairs should be settled by mutual agreement, and that any disagreement not provided for otherwise should be determined by arbitration. The arbitration clause was thus broad in its terms. The respondent has commenced a stockholder’s derivative action in the right of the corporation, and in the complaint alleges that petitioner has deliberately wrecked the corporation and has wasted and disposed of its property without consideration. In our opinion, in view of the broad and unambiguous terms of the provision for arbitration, it was error on the part of the learned Special Term to deny petitioner’s application for the appointment of an arbitrator whose appointment upon the undisputed facts, is contemplated by the provision for arbitration, j Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Petitioner appeals from an order denying his application for the appointment of an arbitrator. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the application granted, with ten dollars costs. ¡ The parties own a corporation whose voting stock and management are divided between them equally. In a written agreement for the organization of the corporation, they provided that all questions, disputes and controversies between them concerning the policies of the management of its affairs should be settled by mutual agreement, and that any disagreement not provided for otherwise should be determined by arbitration. The arbitration clause was thus broad in its terms. The respondent has commenced a stockholder’s derivative action in the right of the corporation, and in the complaint alleges that petitioner has deliberately wrecked the corporation and has wasted and disposed of its property without consideration. In our opinion, in view of the broad and unambiguous terms of the provision for arbitration, it was error on the part of the learned Special Term to deny petitioner’s application for the appointment of an arbitrator whose appointment upon the undisputed facts, is contemplated by the provision for arbitration, j Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 887, 32 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carl-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack