Opinion
September 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.).
Arbitration is the proper form of resolution for the issues being litigated here between plaintiff Lerman and defendant Russell since said issues are pertinent to the validity and effect of the share purchase agreement and its effect upon the original shareholders agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause (see, Matter of Fener Realty Co. [NICO Constr. Co.], 182 A.D.2d 436).
However, since KRL did not sign the shareholders agreement containing the arbitration clause, it cannot be compelled to arbitrate (Matter of Brookfield Clothes v. Tandler Textiles, 78 A.D.2d 841, 842). Accordingly, we hereby stay the action below with respect to KRL in order to avoid simultaneous prosecution of the action and the arbitration, both of which involve the same controversy (see, Flash v. Goldman, 278 App. Div. 829).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.