In re the Arbitration between Bache & Co. & HS Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Bache & Co. & HS Equities, Inc.

49 A.D.2d 816, 372 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10929

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 1975·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 17, 1972 granting petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, the stay vacated and the petition dismissed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant. The acts complained of can be construed to fall within the proscription of either section 9 or subdivision (b) of section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act (US Code, tit 15, §§ 78i, 78j) (see Fischman v Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F2d 783; Klein v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 306 F Supp 743). Although the Statute of Limitations has expired with respect to section 9, since the remedies provided under the Securities Exchange Act are cumulative and not mutually exclusive (Schaefer r First Nat. Bank of Lincolnwood, 509 F2d 1287), appellant may still seek to enforce those rights which are not time-barred (Carr v Lipshie, 8 AD2d 330, affd 9 NY2d 983; Rotstein v Reynolds & Co., 359 F Supp 109; Maher v WiUiston & Beane, 280 F Supp 133). Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 17, 1972 granting petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, the stay vacated and the petition dismissed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant. The acts complained of can be construed to fall within the proscription of either section 9 or subdivision (b) of section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act (US Code, tit 15, §§ 78i, 78j) (see Fischman v Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F2d 783; Klein v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 306 F Supp 743). Although the Statute of Limitations has expired with respect to section 9, since the remedies provided under the Securities Exchange Act are cumulative and not mutually exclusive (Schaefer r First Nat. Bank of Lincolnwood, 509 F2d 1287), appellant may still seek to enforce those rights which are not time-barred (Carr v Lipshie, 8 AD2d 330, affd 9 NY2d 983; Rotstein v Reynolds & Co., 359 F Supp 109; Maher v WiUiston & Beane, 280 F Supp 133). Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between Bache & Co. & HS Equities, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 816, 372 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

49 A.D.2d 816 (In re the Arbitration between Bache & Co. & HS Equities, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related