Hacker v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hacker v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.

136 Misc. 2d 169, 519 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2403

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 Misc. 2d 169 (Hacker v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hacker v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., 136 Misc. 2d 169, 519 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered March 31, 1986, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We additionally observe that under no reasonable construction could the claimed unauthorized seizure by defendant broker of plaintiffs’ funds in the joint brokerage account, as a result of the termination of plaintiff Martin Hacker’s employ[170]*170ment with defendant, be said to be a "controversy arising out of or relating to” the account. The alleged conversion of assets in the account occurred for reasons totally unrelated to a transaction in the account. Since the parties never intended to refer to arbitration an extraneous matter not relating to securities transactions effected under the brokerage agreement, defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ conversion claim must be denied.

Hughes, P. J., Riccobono and Ostrau, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered March 31, 1986, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We additionally observe that under no reasonable construction could the claimed unauthorized seizure by defendant broker of plaintiffs’ funds in the joint brokerage account, as a result of the termination of plaintiff Martin Hacker’s employ[170]*170ment with defendant, be said to be a "controversy arising out of or relating to” the account. The alleged conversion of assets in the account occurred for reasons totally unrelated to a transaction in the account. Since the parties never intended to refer to arbitration an extraneous matter not relating to securities transactions effected under the brokerage agreement, defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ conversion claim must be denied.

Hughes, P. J., Riccobono and Ostrau, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 Misc. 2d 169, 519 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hacker-v-smith-barney-harris-upham-co-nyappterm-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack