In re the Arbitration between Landersman

280 A.D. 963, 116 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1952·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order of Special Term unanimously modified insofar as it granted a stay against the corporation from proceeding with the arbitration and the motion in respect to the corporation denied and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents-appellants. The corporation is bound by the preineorporation agreement (Morgan v. Bon Bon Go., 222 N. Y. 22, 27; Jermyn v. Searing, 225 N. Y. 525, 538; Matter of Super Trading Co., 22 F. 2d 480, 482). The issues proposed are arbitrable. (Martocci v. Martocci, 42 N. Y. S. 2d 222, affd. 266 App. Div. 840; Matter of Carl [Weissman], 263 App. Div. 887.) Matter of Allied Fruit & Extract Co. (243 App. Div. 52) must be read in the light of the affirmance in this court of the Special Term in Martocci v. Martocci (supra). Settle order on notice. Present — • Peck, P. J., Dore, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

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

In re the Arbitration between Landersman, 280 A.D. 963, 116 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

280 A.D. 963 (In re the Arbitration between Landersman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crandall v. Master-Eagle Photoengraving Corp.
27 Misc. 2d 475 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
In re the Arbitration between Staklinski & Pyramid Electric Co.
10 Misc. 2d 706 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
In re the Arbitration between Burkin & Katz
136 N.E.2d 862 (New York Court of Appeals, 1956)
In re the Arbitration between Burkin & Katz
286 A.D. 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)