Imgest Finance Establishment v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

172 A.D.2d 291, 568 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 291 (Imgest Finance Establishment v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.) 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
Imgest Finance Establishment v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 291, 568 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered November 15, 1990, which found in favor of petitioner in the sum of $1,001,391.18, upon confirmation of an award in arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner obtained an arbitration award against its broker, the respondent, for executing improper option trades. When petitioner sought confirmation of the award, respondent cross-moved to vacate the award on the ground of fraud. Specifically, respondent contends that petitioner concealed the fact that its money manager, Pelligrinelli, was also a money manager for another company, Pecon, S.A., which traded through the brokerage house Refco Securities, and that Pelligrinelli had testified in an arbitration proceeding on behalf of Pecon that he had been relying on Refco’s investment advice. The court denied the cross-motion and confirmed the arbitration award, finding that the parties and issues were different in both cases and that respondent failed to establish any meaningful inconsistencies in the testimony of petitioner’s witness or any evidence of fraud.

To vacate an arbitration award on the ground of fraud, a party must establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of fraud, that the fraud would not have been discoverable upon exercise of due diligence prior to or during the arbitration, and that the fraud materially related to an issue in arbitration (Dogherra v Safeway Stores, 679 F2d 1293, cert denied 459 US 990). Respondent has not met this burden. Respondent was aware of the existence of other clients and made no effort to seek the information it now claims was concealed. Nor was the information material, since it appears that the damage award was based on a finding, demonstrable by documentary evidence, that the last order should have [292]*292been canceled before execution. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Shell NA LNG LLC v. Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30753(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Matter of Garrido v. De Blasio
160 N.Y.S.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., A.F.S.C.M.E. Local 1000, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. County of Nassau
142 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Field v. BDO USA, LLP
129 A.D.3d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Low v. MINICHINO
267 P.3d 683 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2011)
Sorrentino v. Weinman
50 A.D.3d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gluck v. Eastern Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
271 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Caremor, Inc. v. Effar (Tiberias) Ltd.
247 A.D.2d 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re Motors Insurance Corporation
221 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re the Arbitration between Klikocki & New York Department of Corrections
216 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Rotblut v. Trieschmann
201 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Numeric Computer Systems, Inc.
194 A.D.2d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 291, 568 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imgest-finance-establishment-v-shearson-lehman-hutton-inc-nyappdiv-1991.