Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Henehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Henehan

267 A.D.2d 120, 699 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13021

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 120 (Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Henehan) 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

Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Henehan, 267 A.D.2d 120, 699 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 13, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject Customer Agreement, although providing for arbitration of any disputes arising thereunder, included a New York choice of law provision effectively incorporating New York’s rule that threshold Statute of Limitations questions are for the courts (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; see also, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Ohnuma, 218 AD2d 572). Accordingly, the IAS Court properly entertained the petition to stay arbitration on the ground that respondent’s claims under the Customer Agreement were time-barred. As to the merits, the court’s determination that respondent’s claims were, in fact, time-barred is not contested. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.'

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 13, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject Customer Agreement, although providing for arbitration of any disputes arising thereunder, included a New York choice of law provision effectively incorporating New York’s rule that threshold Statute of Limitations questions are for the courts (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; see also, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Ohnuma, 218 AD2d 572). Accordingly, the IAS Court properly entertained the petition to stay arbitration on the ground that respondent’s claims under the Customer Agreement were time-barred. As to the merits, the court’s determination that respondent’s claims were, in fact, time-barred is not contested. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 120, 699 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidder-peabody-co-v-henehan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack