Legal Opinion

In re the Arbitration between Karpinecz & Marshall

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

Decided July 11, 1961PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In our opinion, the above issue constitutes a bona fide dispute which relates to the conduct of the corporate business and is embraced within the stockholders’ agreement to arbitrate. “ While it is true that whether or not a bona fide dispute exists is for the court (Matter of Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N. Y. 199), it is equally true that in a proceeding to compel arbitration the question for the court to pass upon is whether the written contract provides for arbitration and, if so, whether there was a failure to proceed with the obligation to arbitrate (Matter of Kahn…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Matter of Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1942
  2. In Re the Arbitration Between Lipschutz & GutwirthNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  3. Matter of Kahn (National City Bank)New York Court of Appeals · 1940
  4. S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1924

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re the Arbitration Between Siegel & LewisNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLPSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  3. Lee v. MarcusDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  4. INTERNAT'L BROTH. OF TEAM. v. Bergen-Hudson Roofing Supply Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  5. Metropolitan District Commission v. Connecticut Resources Recovery AuthorityConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API