Jefferies & Co. v. Infinity Equities I, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jefferies & Co. v. Infinity Equities I, LLC

66 A.D.2d 540, 887 N.Y.S.2d 81

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 A.D.2d 540 (Jefferies & Co. v. Infinity Equities I, LLC) 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

Jefferies & Co. v. Infinity Equities I, LLC, 66 A.D.2d 540, 887 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[541]*541Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 30, 2009, which granted the petition of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and Jonathan D. Sopher to compel respondent Infinity Equities I, LLC to arbitrate certain claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petition was correctly granted. A nonsignatory may be bound to an arbitration agreement if so dictated by the ordinary principles of contract and agency (see McAllister Bros., Inc. v A & S Transp. Co., 621 F2d 519, 523-524 [2d Cir 1980]). An agent acting within the scope of its authority may bind a principal to arbitration in connection with stock transactions (see Scone Invs., L.P. v American Third Mkt. Corp., 992 F Supp 378 [SD NY 1998]; 99 Commercial St., Inc. v Goldberg, 811 F Supp 900 [SD NY 1993]).

Here, Infinity entered into an investment management agreement which provided that the manager was authorized to choose broker/dealers through which purchases and sales of investments would be made and to negotiate “the terms on which purchases and sales will be effected.” Prior to this agreement, the manager had entered into a clearing agreement with petitioners which included a clause mandating arbitration of disputes concerning stock transactions. The manager acted as an agent for Infinity whenever it chose to execute transactions through petitioners on Infinity’s behalf. Since the agreement between Infinity and the manager authorized the latter to negotiate “the terms on which purchases and sales will be effected,” the fact that the clearing agreement preceded the agency relationship between Infinity and the manager does not preclude Infinity’s being bound by that agreement. Concur— Tom, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[541]*541Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 30, 2009, which granted the petition of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and Jonathan D. Sopher to compel respondent Infinity Equities I, LLC to arbitrate certain claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The petition was correctly granted. A nonsignatory may be bound to an arbitration agreement if so dictated by the ordinary principles of contract and agency (see McAllister Bros., Inc. v A & S Transp. Co., 621 F2d 519, 523-524 [2d Cir 1980]). An agent acting within the scope of its authority may bind a principal to arbitration in connection with stock transactions (see Scone Invs., L.P. v American Third Mkt. Corp., 992 F Supp 378 [SD NY 1998]; 99 Commercial St., Inc. v Goldberg, 811 F Supp 900 [SD NY 1993]).

Here, Infinity entered into an investment management agreement which provided that the manager was authorized to choose broker/dealers through which purchases and sales of investments would be made and to negotiate “the terms on which purchases and sales will be effected.” Prior to this agreement, the manager had entered into a clearing agreement with petitioners which included a clause mandating arbitration of disputes concerning stock transactions. The manager acted as an agent for Infinity whenever it chose to execute transactions through petitioners on Infinity’s behalf. Since the agreement between Infinity and the manager authorized the latter to negotiate “the terms on which purchases and sales will be effected,” the fact that the clearing agreement preceded the agency relationship between Infinity and the manager does not preclude Infinity’s being bound by that agreement. Concur— Tom, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 540, 887 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferies-co-v-infinity-equities-i-llc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack