Lerman v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lerman v. Russell

207 A.D.2d 746, 616 N.Y.S.2d 961

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 746 (Lerman v. Russell) 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

Lerman v. Russell, 207 A.D.2d 746, 616 N.Y.S.2d 961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered on or about March 29,1994, which, inter alia, directed the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing that the arbitration proceed only with respect to plaintiff and defendant Russell and that the action be stayed with respect to defendant KRL pending the outcome of the arbitration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Arbitration is the proper form of resolution for the issues being litigated here between plaintiff Lerman and defendant Russell since said issues are pertinent to the validity and effect of the share purchase agreement and its effect upon the original shareholders agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause (see, Matter of Fener Realty Co. [NICO Constr. Co.], 182 AD2d 436).

However, since KRL did not sign the shareholders agreement containing the arbitration clause, it cannot be compelled to arbitrate (Matter of Brookfield Clothes v Tandler Textiles, 78 AD2d 841, 842). Accordingly, we hereby stay the action below with respect to KRL in order to avoid simultaneous prosecution of the action and the arbitration, both of which involve the same controversy (see, Flash v Goldman, 278 App Div 829). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered on or about March 29,1994, which, inter alia, directed the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing that the arbitration proceed only with respect to plaintiff and defendant Russell and that the action be stayed with respect to defendant KRL pending the outcome of the arbitration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Arbitration is the proper form of resolution for the issues being litigated here between plaintiff Lerman and defendant Russell since said issues are pertinent to the validity and effect of the share purchase agreement and its effect upon the original shareholders agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause (see, Matter of Fener Realty Co. [NICO Constr. Co.], 182 AD2d 436).

However, since KRL did not sign the shareholders agreement containing the arbitration clause, it cannot be compelled to arbitrate (Matter of Brookfield Clothes v Tandler Textiles, 78 AD2d 841, 842). Accordingly, we hereby stay the action below with respect to KRL in order to avoid simultaneous prosecution of the action and the arbitration, both of which involve the same controversy (see, Flash v Goldman, 278 App Div 829). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 746, 616 N.Y.S.2d 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lerman-v-russell-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack