In re the Arbitration between Rosen & Steigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Rosen & Steigman

33 A.D.2d 539, 304 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3162

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 539 (In re the Arbitration between Rosen & Steigman) 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 Rosen & Steigman, 33 A.D.2d 539, 304 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 4, 1969, recalling the prior order of January 24, 1969, directing an inspection of the corporate books and records, and holding in abeyance until such inspection has been had, the question of the appointment of a third arbitrator, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In affirming, we conclude that the petitioners are entitled to discovery and inspection as directed and in so holding, we disregard any question as to the form, of the proceeding (see CPLR 103, stibd. [e]; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 103.08, p. 1-49; Matter of Lakeland, Water Dist. v. Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 N Y 2d 400, 408). Inasmuch "as the matter of the appointment of a third arbitrator is reserved for future application, we do not reach the other questions presented by either party. In view of the foregoing, the order dated January 22, 1969 stands vacated; the appeal therefrom is dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. . Concur — • 'Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewieh, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

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

Order entered June 4, 1969, recalling the prior order of January 24, 1969, directing an inspection of the corporate books and records, and holding in abeyance until such inspection has been had, the question of the appointment of a third arbitrator, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In affirming, we conclude that the petitioners are entitled to discovery and inspection as directed and in so holding, we disregard any question as to the form, of the proceeding (see CPLR 103, stibd. [e]; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 103.08, p. 1-49; Matter of Lakeland, Water Dist. v. Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 N Y 2d 400, 408). Inasmuch "as the matter of the appointment of a third arbitrator is reserved for future application, we do not reach the other questions presented by either party. In view of the foregoing, the order dated January 22, 1969 stands vacated; the appeal therefrom is dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. . Concur — • 'Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewieh, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 539, 304 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-rosen-steigman-nyappdiv-1969.