TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Carrier Communications Corp. v. Cellular Telephone Enterprises, Inc.

Carrier Communications Corp. v. Cellular Telephone Enterprises, Inc., (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Carrier Paging Systems, Inc. v. Cellular Telephone Enterprises, Inc., (Matter No. 2)

Carrier Commc'ns Corp. v. Cellular Tel. Enters., 189 A.D.2d 848 (1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 25, 1993
Citations
189 A.D.2d 848

Opinion of the Court

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

In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, consolidated with a proceeding to stay arbitration, Cellular Telephone Enterprises, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 29, 1992, as (1) granted those branches of the motion of Carrier Paging Systems, Inc., which were to stay arbitration concerning claims against Rick Kaminer and Harry Lowenthal individually, and (2) granted the cross motion of Carrier Communications Corp. to stay arbitration against it and to sever the action from the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the case in deciding which parties are subject to the arbitration agreement (see, Matter of Lane [Abel-Bey], 50 NY2d 864). Moreover, we agree that the appellant failed to establish that Carrier Paging Systems, Inc., was the alter ego of its parent, Carrier Communications Corp., which would have allowed the court to pierce the corporate veil and hold a nonsignatory liable on the contracts in question, or that the corporate officers of Carrier Paging Systems, Inc., were personally liable on those contracts (see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 11995: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. International Customs Associates, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.893 F. Supp. 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
  2. Town of Smithtown v. National Union Fire Insurance191 A.D.2d 426 (1993)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Zuckerman v. City of N.Y., 404 N.E.2d 718 (N.Y. 1980) 8,040
Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Fed. Ins., 520 N.E.2d 512 (N.Y. 1988) 354
In re the Arbitration between Lane & Abel-Bey, 407 N.E.2d 1337 (N.Y. 1980) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list