Matter of Kingsway Am. Inc. v. Zephyr Acquisition Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Kingsway Am. Inc. v. Zephyr Acquisition Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 1640, 148 A.D.3d 429, 47 N.Y.S.3d 710

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2017

Docket3319 154035/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1640 (Matter of Kingsway Am. Inc. v. Zephyr Acquisition Co.) 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

Matter of Kingsway Am. Inc. v. Zephyr Acquisition Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 1640, 148 A.D.3d 429, 47 N.Y.S.3d 710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered November 18, 2015, denying the petition and dismissing the special proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner seeks to compel respondent to submit Items of Dispute (as that term is defined in the parties’ 2009 share purchase agreement) to an independent accounting firm under section 2.4 (c) of the agreement. However, the record shows that the parties resolved the Items of Dispute in 2010, when petitioner did not dispute that the post-closing adjustment would be approximately $5.5 million. We note that the of section 2.4 (c) indicates that the intended Items of Dispute to be resolved expeditiously.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered November 18, 2015, denying the petition and dismissing the special proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner seeks to compel respondent to submit Items of Dispute (as that term is defined in the parties’ 2009 share purchase agreement) to an independent accounting firm under section 2.4 (c) of the agreement. However, the record shows that the parties resolved the Items of Dispute in 2010, when petitioner did not dispute that the post-closing adjustment would be approximately $5.5 million. We note that the of section 2.4 (c) indicates that the intended Items of Dispute to be resolved expeditiously.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1640, 148 A.D.3d 429, 47 N.Y.S.3d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kingsway-am-inc-v-zephyr-acquisition-co-nyappdiv-2017.