Katz v. Alpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Alpert

82 A.D.3d 588, 919 N.Y.2d 148

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 588 (Katz v. Alpert) 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

Katz v. Alpert, 82 A.D.3d 588, 919 N.Y.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[589]*589The court properly determined that respondents failed to demonstrate that the 1996 A. Alpert Trust was the alter ego of Abraham Alpert. There is no showing that Alpert dominated and controlled the trust or acted to perpetrate a fraud or injustice. Accordingly, the trust is not subject to the arbitration provision to which Alpert was bound (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339-340 [1998]). Contrary to respondents’ contention, the evidence does not raise a “substantial question” requiring a hearing on the issue of arbitrability (CPLR 7503 [a]).

Given the foregoing, we need not decide whether respondents’ claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract claims, or whether they are revived by the relation-back doctrine.

We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

[589]*589The court properly determined that respondents failed to demonstrate that the 1996 A. Alpert Trust was the alter ego of Abraham Alpert. There is no showing that Alpert dominated and controlled the trust or acted to perpetrate a fraud or injustice. Accordingly, the trust is not subject to the arbitration provision to which Alpert was bound (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339-340 [1998]). Contrary to respondents’ contention, the evidence does not raise a “substantial question” requiring a hearing on the issue of arbitrability (CPLR 7503 [a]).

Given the foregoing, we need not decide whether respondents’ claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract claims, or whether they are revived by the relation-back doctrine.

We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 588, 919 N.Y.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-alpert-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack