BARONE, ANTONIA v. HASKINS, JAMES D.

132 A.D.3d 1422, 17 N.Y.S.3d 665
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 9, 2015
DocketCA 14-02006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 1422 (BARONE, ANTONIA v. HASKINS, JAMES D.) 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
BARONE, ANTONIA v. HASKINS, JAMES D., 132 A.D.3d 1422, 17 N.Y.S.3d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Henry J. Nowak, Jr., J.), entered October 17, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendants James D. Haskins and Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc., doing business as Commonwealth Financial Network, to compel arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff *1423 commenced this action alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the General Business Law. James D. Haskins and Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc., doing business as Commonwealth Financial Network, brought a motion seeking, inter alia, to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a). We conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that Matter of Brady v Williams Capital Group, L.P. (14 NY3d 459 [2010]) applies in the financial/investment industry context (see generally Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v Randolph, 531 US 79, 88-91 [2000]). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration on the ground that arbitration in this case would be financially prohibitive to plaintiff without first directing plaintiff to apply for a waiver of the arbitration fee charged by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for that purpose before deciding the motion pursuant to the factors set forth in Brady (id. at 467).

Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Related

Barone v. Haskins
2021 NY Slip Op 02686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Mariglio v. Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services, Inc.
133 A.D.3d 1371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 1422, 17 N.Y.S.3d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barone-antonia-v-haskins-james-d-nyappdiv-2015.