In re the Arbitration between Feiden & Eisenberg
This text of 26 A.D.2d 810 (In re the Arbitration between Feiden & Eisenberg) 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.
Opinion
Order entered on June 23, 1966, on motion to stay arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out all ordering paragraphs and ordering in lieu thereof that the arbitration proceed in accord with the notice served, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. Special Term found that respondent was entitled to proceed to arbitration but found fault with the demand for arbitration. The court then directed that a new notice be served, provided for the service of an answer by appellant, and stayed proceedings in two actions instituted by appellant. The arbitration was sought in regard to transactions in a corporation, of which the parties are stockholders, pursuant to a stockholders’ agreement providing for arbitration. The actions concern another corporation and a partnership in which the parties have interests, but there are no applicable agreements to arbitrate the disputes which may arise between the parties in regard to these entities. As a consequence, respondent could not be compelled to arbitrate in regard to them, nor could it be made a condition to her right to arbitrate the dispute as to which there was an agreement. This being so, there is no occasion for staying the actions instituted. Nor are there any grounds for requiring the service of papers in the nature of pleadings in an arbitration proceeding other than those provided by statute or by the agreement to arbitrate. Motion for a stay of arbitration pending appeal dismissed, without costs, having become academic by virtue of 'the decision of this court, decided herewith. Concur —Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 A.D.2d 810, 274 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-feiden-eisenberg-nyappdiv-1966.