Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co.

208 A.D.2d 448, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1017
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 1, 1994, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The issue of plaintiff’s status as a shareholder in defendant Millwork Trading Co. (see, Blatt v Socket, 199 AD2d 451), and plaintiff’s derivative claim against defendant Darling (see, Maresca v La Certosa, 172 AD2d 725), both fall within the scope of the broad arbitration clause contained in the shareholders’ agreement. The action was also properly stayed against defendant Fung since plaintiff’s claims against him raise issues similar to those against defendant Darling (see, Brown v V&R Adv., 112 AD2d 856, 861, affd 67 NY2d 772). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co., 208 A.D.2d 448, 618 N.Y.S.2d 1017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

208 A.D.2d 448 (Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Castellone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
60 A.D.3d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Cohen v. Ark Asset Holdings, Inc.
268 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)