Naroor v. Gondal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naroor v. Gondal

17 A.D.3d 142, 792 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634

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

DecidedApril 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 142 (Naroor v. Gondal) 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

Naroor v. Gondal, 17 A.D.3d 142, 792 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J), entered September 28, 2004, confirming arbitration awards to petitioners Naroor and Qureshi in the principal sums of $29,601 and $15,928, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 20, 2004, which confirmed the arbitration awards and denied a cross motion to vacate the awards, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Naroor and Qureshi commenced this arbitration proceeding because of their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Gondal parties managed their respective investment accounts at [143]*143Charles Schwab & Co. While the proceeding to confirm in part and vacate in part the awards was pending, the Condal parties commenced their own proceeding against the New York Stock Exchange and others, seeking to vacate the same awards.

The Condal parties have failed to demonstrate any of the exclusive grounds for vacating the awards, as set forth in CPLR 7511 (b). By their full participation in the arbitration hearings, they waived their claims that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction over them, that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate, and that they were not served with a proper notice of intent to arbitrate (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307 [1984]). The Condal parties were present at all of the hearings, represented by two attorneys, and they actively participated by raising objections and cross-examining witnesses. In any event, there was a valid arbitration agreement whereby the Condal parties stipulated that any claim arising from the contractual relationship between them and Charles Schwab & Co., or from the Condal parties’ relationship with their own clients, would be arbitrated at the New York Stock Exchange.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J), entered September 28, 2004, confirming arbitration awards to petitioners Naroor and Qureshi in the principal sums of $29,601 and $15,928, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 20, 2004, which confirmed the arbitration awards and denied a cross motion to vacate the awards, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Naroor and Qureshi commenced this arbitration proceeding because of their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Gondal parties managed their respective investment accounts at [143]*143Charles Schwab & Co. While the proceeding to confirm in part and vacate in part the awards was pending, the Condal parties commenced their own proceeding against the New York Stock Exchange and others, seeking to vacate the same awards.

The Condal parties have failed to demonstrate any of the exclusive grounds for vacating the awards, as set forth in CPLR 7511 (b). By their full participation in the arbitration hearings, they waived their claims that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction over them, that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate, and that they were not served with a proper notice of intent to arbitrate (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 307 [1984]). The Condal parties were present at all of the hearings, represented by two attorneys, and they actively participated by raising objections and cross-examining witnesses. In any event, there was a valid arbitration agreement whereby the Condal parties stipulated that any claim arising from the contractual relationship between them and Charles Schwab & Co., or from the Condal parties’ relationship with their own clients, would be arbitrated at the New York Stock Exchange.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 142, 792 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naroor-v-gondal-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack