In re the Arbitration between McNulty & Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between McNulty & Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers

176 A.D.2d 881, 575 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13387

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 881 (In re the Arbitration between McNulty & Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers) 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 the Arbitration between McNulty & Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 176 A.D.2d 881, 575 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to stay the arbitration of claims that the petitioner failed to make certain union benefit fund contributions required under a collective bargaining agreement, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), entered November 15, 1989, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and further proceedings in accordance herewith.

There should be a hearing on the issue of whether the petitioner conducted his business affairs in such a manner as to warrant that the corporate veils of his various corporate enterprises be pierced (see, Glasser v Price, 35 AD2d 98). Assuming that such a showing is made after a hearing, then the petitioner, who was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement requiring the arbitration of such disputes, may be compelled to submit to arbitration of the appellant’s claim that the judgments obtained against Certified Erectors, Inc., may be satisfied by the assets of the petitioner’s other alleged corporate holdings or out of his personal assets (see, Matter of Sbarro Holding [Shiaw Tien Yuan], 91 AD2d 613).

By participating in the arbitration proceedings prior to moving for a stay, the petitioner has waived his objections thereto (see, Matter of Home Mut. Ins. Co. v Springer, 130 AD2d 493; Matter of Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v Martin, 34 AD2d 776). However, in the event that the court finds that the petitioner is shielded from personal liability after a hearing, a stay of arbitration should issue against the petitioner in his individual capacity. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to stay the arbitration of claims that the petitioner failed to make certain union benefit fund contributions required under a collective bargaining agreement, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), entered November 15, 1989, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and further proceedings in accordance herewith.

There should be a hearing on the issue of whether the petitioner conducted his business affairs in such a manner as to warrant that the corporate veils of his various corporate enterprises be pierced (see, Glasser v Price, 35 AD2d 98). Assuming that such a showing is made after a hearing, then the petitioner, who was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement requiring the arbitration of such disputes, may be compelled to submit to arbitration of the appellant’s claim that the judgments obtained against Certified Erectors, Inc., may be satisfied by the assets of the petitioner’s other alleged corporate holdings or out of his personal assets (see, Matter of Sbarro Holding [Shiaw Tien Yuan], 91 AD2d 613).

By participating in the arbitration proceedings prior to moving for a stay, the petitioner has waived his objections thereto (see, Matter of Home Mut. Ins. Co. v Springer, 130 AD2d 493; Matter of Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v Martin, 34 AD2d 776). However, in the event that the court finds that the petitioner is shielded from personal liability after a hearing, a stay of arbitration should issue against the petitioner in his individual capacity. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 881, 575 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-mcnulty-locals-40-361-417-union-security-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack