Lowell v. Belsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lowell v. Belsky

109 A.D.2d 730, 485 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47209

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 730 (Lowell v. Belsky) 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

Lowell v. Belsky, 109 A.D.2d 730, 485 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to remove defendants Robert Belsky and Herbert Herling as directors of the Quantachrome Corporation and to bar them from holding the offices of director, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated January 27, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 7503 staying the within action and directing that the matter proceed to arbitration.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term was correct in deciding that under the broad arbitration provision in the shareholder’s agreement, the matters raised in plaintiff’s complaint, viz., the attendance and performance of defendant directors Robert Belsky and Herbert Herling, were properly the subject of arbitration (see, Matter of Freedman [Padover], 75 AD2d 807, appeal denied in part and dismissed in part 50 NY2d 803, appeal denied 50 NY2d 926). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to remove defendants Robert Belsky and Herbert Herling as directors of the Quantachrome Corporation and to bar them from holding the offices of director, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated January 27, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 7503 staying the within action and directing that the matter proceed to arbitration.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term was correct in deciding that under the broad arbitration provision in the shareholder’s agreement, the matters raised in plaintiff’s complaint, viz., the attendance and performance of defendant directors Robert Belsky and Herbert Herling, were properly the subject of arbitration (see, Matter of Freedman [Padover], 75 AD2d 807, appeal denied in part and dismissed in part 50 NY2d 803, appeal denied 50 NY2d 926). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 730, 485 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowell-v-belsky-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack