In re the Arbitration between Karpinecz & Marshall

In the Matter of the Arbitration between Peter Karpinecz, and Arthur A. Marshall

In re the Arbitration between Karpinecz & Marshall, 14 A.D.2d 569 (1961)

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided: July 11, 1961
Citations: 14 A.D.2d 569218 N.Y.S.2d 881961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544

Cited by 5 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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 [Nat. City Bank], 284 N. Y. 515 ). The question of performance goes to the merits and is a matter for the arbitrators -whenever it appears that the parties have so consented (Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.], 289 N. Y. 76 * * *)” (Matter of Potoker [Brooklyn Eagle], 2 N Y 2d 553-559). We are also of the opinion that petitioner’s attorney, by reason of that relationship standing alone, is not disqualified from being designated to serve as petitioner’s arbitrator (Matter of Lipschutz [Gutwirth], 304 N. Y. 58, 63-64 ). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur. [27 Mise 2d 122.]

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(surveyor previously repeatedly employed by party)

Lee v. Marcus, 396 So. 2d 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

INTERNAT'L BROTH. OF TEAM. v. Bergen-Hudson Roofing Supply Co.387 A.2d 1246 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
In re the Arbitration Between Siegel & Lewis358 N.E.2d 484 (N.Y. 1976)
Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP846 A.2d 862 (Conn. 2004)
Lee v. Marcus396 So. 2d 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Metropolitan District Commission v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority22 A.3d 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)

Most recent

Metropolitan District Commission v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority22 A.3d 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP846 A.2d 862 (Conn. 2004)
Lee v. Marcus396 So. 2d 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
INTERNAT'L BROTH. OF TEAM. v. Bergen-Hudson Roofing Supply Co.387 A.2d 1246 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
In re the Arbitration Between Siegel & Lewis358 N.E.2d 484 (N.Y. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	In re Lipman (Haeuser Shellac Co.), 43 N.E.2d 817 (N.Y. 1942)	152
	In re the Arbitration Between Lipschutz & Gutwirth, 106 N.E.2d 8 (N.Y. 1952)	50
	In re Kahn (Nat'l City Bank), 32 N.E.2d 534 (N.Y. 1940)	48
	S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., 146 N.E. 203 (N.Y. 1924)	42

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list