Commerz Markets LLC v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commerz Markets LLC v. Miller

93 A.D.3d 435, 939 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 435 (Commerz Markets LLC v. Miller) 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

Commerz Markets LLC v. Miller, 93 A.D.3d 435, 939 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 12, 2011, which, upon confirming an arbitration award of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in favor of respondents, awarded judgment to them in the total amount of $3,882,470, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has not established that the arbitration award was marked by a manifest disregard of the law, as there has been no showing that the arbitrators ignored or refused to apply an applicable legal principle (see Wien & Malkin LLP v HelmsleySpear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479-481 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]). The arbitrators were presented with evidence that petitioner’s predecessor, Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC, was respondents’ employer and was liable to them for unpaid bonus compensation. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.

Motion to enlarge the record granted.

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 (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered October 12, 2011, which, upon confirming an arbitration award of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in favor of respondents, awarded judgment to them in the total amount of $3,882,470, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has not established that the arbitration award was marked by a manifest disregard of the law, as there has been no showing that the arbitrators ignored or refused to apply an applicable legal principle (see Wien & Malkin LLP v HelmsleySpear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479-481 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]). The arbitrators were presented with evidence that petitioner’s predecessor, Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC, was respondents’ employer and was liable to them for unpaid bonus compensation. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.

Motion to enlarge the record granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 435, 939 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commerz-markets-llc-v-miller-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack