In re the Arbitration between Russian-Brazilian Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Russian-Brazilian Holdings, Inc.

197 A.D.2d 391, 602 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 391 (In re the Arbitration between Russian-Brazilian Holdings, Inc.) 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 Russian-Brazilian Holdings, Inc., 197 A.D.2d 391, 602 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about April 14, 1993, which denied respondents’ motions to stay arbitration and to vacate an order confirming the order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Considering the signed contracts at issue as well as the European Coffee Contracts to which the instant agreements were subject, it is clear that any dispute concerning the contracts was to be resolved through arbitration. Moreover, while respondent Saraev only signed the contracts in a representative capacity for "Alpha Technology,” the overall circumstances establish that he personally entered into a "joint venture” with petitioner (see, Matter of Steinbeck v Gerosa, 4 NY2d 302, 317); that it was his personal funds that would fund the entire transaction; and that "Alpha Technology” appears to be the alter ego of Saraev (see, Matter of Sbarro Holding [Shiaw Tien Yuan], 91 AD2d 613). Accordingly, Saraev, personally, is required to resolve the instant dispute by arbitration (see, Matter of Siegel v 141 Bowery Corp., 51 AD2d 209).

In light of, inter alia, Saraev’s personal involvement in the instant business transaction, his alleged breach of the con[392]*392tracts, "Alpha Technology’s” apparent undercapitalization, and the fact that Saraev is a "nondomiciliary residing without the state” (CPLR 6201 [1]), an attachment of Saraev’s personal accounts in New York was well founded (CPLR 7502 [c]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about April 14, 1993, which denied respondents’ motions to stay arbitration and to vacate an order confirming the order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Considering the signed contracts at issue as well as the European Coffee Contracts to which the instant agreements were subject, it is clear that any dispute concerning the contracts was to be resolved through arbitration. Moreover, while respondent Saraev only signed the contracts in a representative capacity for "Alpha Technology,” the overall circumstances establish that he personally entered into a "joint venture” with petitioner (see, Matter of Steinbeck v Gerosa, 4 NY2d 302, 317); that it was his personal funds that would fund the entire transaction; and that "Alpha Technology” appears to be the alter ego of Saraev (see, Matter of Sbarro Holding [Shiaw Tien Yuan], 91 AD2d 613). Accordingly, Saraev, personally, is required to resolve the instant dispute by arbitration (see, Matter of Siegel v 141 Bowery Corp., 51 AD2d 209).

In light of, inter alia, Saraev’s personal involvement in the instant business transaction, his alleged breach of the con[392]*392tracts, "Alpha Technology’s” apparent undercapitalization, and the fact that Saraev is a "nondomiciliary residing without the state” (CPLR 6201 [1]), an attachment of Saraev’s personal accounts in New York was well founded (CPLR 7502 [c]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 391, 602 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-russian-brazilian-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack