Siegel v. Lewis
New York Court of Appeals
40 N.Y.2d 687, 389 N.Y.S.2d 800, 358 N.E.2d 484 (1976)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Henry Lewis (defendant) sold 50 percent of the stock in his lamp-shade corporation to Murray Siegel (plaintiff) pursuant to a stock-purchase agreement for an upfront $10,000 payment and monthly $1,000 payments. Samuel Kooper was Lewis and the corporation’s attorney for the preceding 15 years and represented Lewis in connection with the sale to Siegel. Birnbaum was Lewis and the corporation’s accountant for the preceding 15 years. Birnbaum also was the escrowee for the sale to Siegel. Kooper and Birnbaum continued to serve as the corporation’s attorney and accountant, respectively, after the transaction. Siegel had his own attorney for the transaction. The agreement contained an arbitration clause naming Kooper and Birnbaum as the sole arbitrators in the event of a dispute. Approximately three years after the closing, Lewis accused Siegel of converting corporate funds for Siegel’s personal use. Lewis, Siegel, Kooper, and Birnbaum met in an attempt to resolve the dispute, but they were unsuccessful. In anticipation of arbitration, Siegel filed suit against Lewis, seeking to disqualify Kooper and Birnbaum as arbitrators due to their prior relationships with Lewis and their personal knowledge of the relevant facts. Siegel did not allege that the naming of Kooper and Birnbaum as arbitrators was the product of fraud, duress, overreaching, or grossly unequal bargaining power. The supreme court agreed that Kooper and Birnbaum should be disqualified. The appellate division affirmed. Lewis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuchsberg, J.)
Concurrence (Breitel, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
