Balfour Maclaine Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balfour Maclaine Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh

187 A.D.2d 272, 589 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12607

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 272 (Balfour Maclaine Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balfour Maclaine Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, 187 A.D.2d 272, 589 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered June 20, 1991, dismissing the complaint upon an order of the same court, entered June 5, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that introducing brokers are neither employees of nor registered representatives associated with futures commodity merchants, but independent contractors separately registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Accordingly, plaintiff merchant may not look to its fidelity bond with defendant insurance company for defalcations of the introducing brokers, the latter being neither plaintiff’s employees nor registered representatives associated with it. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered June 20, 1991, dismissing the complaint upon an order of the same court, entered June 5, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that introducing brokers are neither employees of nor registered representatives associated with futures commodity merchants, but independent contractors separately registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Accordingly, plaintiff merchant may not look to its fidelity bond with defendant insurance company for defalcations of the introducing brokers, the latter being neither plaintiff’s employees nor registered representatives associated with it. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 272, 589 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balfour-maclaine-corp-v-national-union-fire-insurance-of-pittsburgh-nyappdiv-1992.