BDO Seidman, LLP v. Greenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Greenblatt

17 A.D.3d 209, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055

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

DecidedApril 19, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 209 (BDO Seidman, LLP v. Greenblatt) 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

BDO Seidman, LLP v. Greenblatt, 17 A.D.3d 209, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 22, 2004, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The arbitration award apportioning fault between plaintiff and the fraud victims included the brokerage houses’ share of responsibility as the victims’ agents, and thus bars plaintiffs contribution claim against said defendants-respondents. Plaintiff is precluded from ascribing liability to them under a different theory from that claimed in arbitration (see Elliott Assoc., L.P. v Hayes, 14 AD3d 435 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 22, 2004, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The arbitration award apportioning fault between plaintiff and the fraud victims included the brokerage houses’ share of responsibility as the victims’ agents, and thus bars plaintiffs contribution claim against said defendants-respondents. Plaintiff is precluded from ascribing liability to them under a different theory from that claimed in arbitration (see Elliott Assoc., L.P. v Hayes, 14 AD3d 435 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 209, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bdo-seidman-llp-v-greenblatt-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack