From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4583N.

March 22, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered October 2, 2009, which granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Heller, Horowitz Feit, P.C., New York (Stuart A. Blander of counsel), for appellants.

Stroock Stroock Lavan LLP, New York (Joel Cohen of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.


The court properly determined that respondents failed to demonstrate that; the 1996 A. Alpert Trust was the alter ego of Abraham Alpert. There is no snowing that Alpert dominated and controlled the trust or acted to perpetrate a fraud or injustice. Accordingly, the trust is not subject to the arbitration provision to which Alpert was bound ( see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339-340). Contrary to respondents' contention, the evidence does not raise a "substantial question" requiring a hearing on the issue of arbitrability (CPLR 7503 [a]).

Given the foregoing, we need not decide whether respondents' claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract claims, or whether they are revived by the relation-back doctrine.

We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

In re Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Katz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LOIS KATZ et al., Respondents, v. CHARLES ALPERT et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2070
919 N.Y.S.2d 148

Citing Cases

United States v. Evseroff

Moreover, there is some precedent indicating that the alter ego doctrine also applies to trusts. See…