Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co.

266 A.D.2d 133, 698 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 133 (Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co.) 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

Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co., 266 A.D.2d 133, 698 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 27, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under General Business Law § 349, since the securities transactions at issue are outside the scope of the statute (see, Smith v Triad Mfg. Group, 255 AD2d 962, 964). In any event, defendants, as clearing brokers, had no duty to disclose to the introducing broker’s clients, and thus the statutory cause of action, as well as the negligence claim, was properly dismissed (see, In re Blech Sec. Litig., 928 F Supp 1279, 1295-1296). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 27, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under General Business Law § 349, since the securities transactions at issue are outside the scope of the statute (see, Smith v Triad Mfg. Group, 255 AD2d 962, 964). In any event, defendants, as clearing brokers, had no duty to disclose to the introducing broker’s clients, and thus the statutory cause of action, as well as the negligence claim, was properly dismissed (see, In re Blech Sec. Litig., 928 F Supp 1279, 1295-1296). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 133, 698 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwarz-v-bear-stearns-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack