Legal Opinion
Meisels v. Uhr
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 13, 1989PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Elliott Golden, J.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner moves by order to show cause for an order vacating an arbitration award of a rabbinical court (Beth-Din).
*572The underlying facts which give rise to the disputes herein are as follows: The petitioner, Josephs Meisels, and the respondents, Alexander and Moses Uhr, were business associates, having formed a partnership or partnerships through which they purchased, operated and owned three parcels of realty: one each located in New York County, Kings County, and Queens County. At some point in time and as a result of allegations of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Gangel v. DeGrootNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Sisters of Saint John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v. Phillips R. Geraghty Constructor, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- In re the Arbitration between Hellman & WolbromAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- Shuffman v. Rudd Plastic Fabrics Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Meisels v. UhrNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Gutman v. FriedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Meisels v. UhrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991