Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.

224 A.D.2d 268, 637 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1072

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered May 3, 1995, which denied petitioners’ motion for leave to conduct certain additional pre-arbitration discovery and for leave to amend their petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The relevant issue to be pursued at the pre-arbitration hearing is the framed issue, which is whether "various of the petitioners may be bound by the arbitration agreement by reason of being the signatory’s alter egos, successors and/or assigns”, as to which "a hearing, and attendant disclosure, is needed in order to determine the relevant relationships and, ultimately, the proper parties to the arbitration” (193 AD2d 478). The IAS Court properly gave law of the case effect to our prior ruling in barring petitioners’ efforts to explore additional issues (cf., Wilson v McCarthy, 53 AD2d 860). Denial of leave to amend was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, Branch v Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store, 220 AD2d 474). We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered May 3, 1995, which denied petitioners’ motion for leave to conduct certain additional pre-arbitration discovery and for leave to amend their petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The relevant issue to be pursued at the pre-arbitration hearing is the framed issue, which is whether "various of the petitioners may be bound by the arbitration agreement by reason of being the signatory’s alter egos, successors and/or assigns”, as to which "a hearing, and attendant disclosure, is needed in order to determine the relevant relationships and, ultimately, the proper parties to the arbitration” (193 AD2d 478). The IAS Court properly gave law of the case effect to our prior ruling in barring petitioners’ efforts to explore additional issues (cf., Wilson v McCarthy, 53 AD2d 860). Denial of leave to amend was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, Branch v Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store, 220 AD2d 474). We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp., 224 A.D.2d 268, 637 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 268 (Welton Becket Associates v. LLJV Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related