In re the Arbitration between Siegel & TM Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Siegel & TM Systems, Inc.

86 A.D.2d 524, 447 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15040

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 524 (In re the Arbitration between Siegel & TM Systems, 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 Siegel & TM Systems, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 524, 447 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Fingerhood, J.), entered July 15,1981, granting the application of respondent Fischman to confirm the award of the arbitrator and denying the cross application of petitioners Siegel and Platt to vacate it affirmed, with costs. In affirming the determination of Special Term which confirmed the award of the arbitrator, we note that the arbitrator did not endeavor to determine the rights of minority stockholders not party to the agreement here involved. Since they were not signatories to the agreement and had never agreed to arbitrate, this was clearly correct. Should the award ultimately lead to proceedings looking to a dissolution of the corporation, notice thereof will be required to be served upon all of the shareholders, including those who were not parties to the arbitration (Business Corporation Law, § 1106). At that time they will be in a position to take such action to protect their rights as they may deem necessary. Concur — Birns, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Bloom and Eein, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Fingerhood, J.), entered July 15,1981, granting the application of respondent Fischman to confirm the award of the arbitrator and denying the cross application of petitioners Siegel and Platt to vacate it affirmed, with costs. In affirming the determination of Special Term which confirmed the award of the arbitrator, we note that the arbitrator did not endeavor to determine the rights of minority stockholders not party to the agreement here involved. Since they were not signatories to the agreement and had never agreed to arbitrate, this was clearly correct. Should the award ultimately lead to proceedings looking to a dissolution of the corporation, notice thereof will be required to be served upon all of the shareholders, including those who were not parties to the arbitration (Business Corporation Law, § 1106). At that time they will be in a position to take such action to protect their rights as they may deem necessary. Concur — Birns, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Bloom and Eein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 524, 447 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-siegel-tm-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1982.