From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1994
208 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 20, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


The issue of plaintiff's status as a shareholder in defendant Millwork Trading Co. (see, Blatt v. Sochet, 199 A.D.2d 451), and plaintiff's derivative claim against defendant Darling (see, Maresca v. La Certosa, 172 A.D.2d 725), both fall within the scope of the broad arbitration clause contained in the shareholders' agreement. The action was also properly stayed against defendant Fung since plaintiff's claims against him raise issues similar to those against defendant Darling (see, Brown v. VR Adv., 112 A.D.2d 856, 861, affd 67 N.Y.2d 772).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 1994
208 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Marcus v. Millwork Trading Co.

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE J. MARCUS, Individually, as a Shareholder and in the Right of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 20, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 1017

Citing Cases

Mezzalingua v. Deutsche Bank AG

The First Department considers stays appropriate where the claims against the non-arbitrating defendant…

Mezzalingua v. Deutsche Bank AG

The First Department considers stays appropriate where the claims against the non-arbitrating defendant…