Skelly v. Willet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skelly v. Willet

270 A.D.2d 218, 705 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3273

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 218 (Skelly v. Willet) 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

Skelly v. Willet, 270 A.D.2d 218, 705 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which, in a proceeding to stay an arbitration demanded by respondent under the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to petitioners’ claim that their resignation from the NASD voided any duty they have to arbitrate respondent’s claim that, as principals of respondent’s employer, they caused respondent’s constructive discharge in retaliation for his having reported illegal trading activities to the NASD (see, Matter of Dunay v Weisglass, 54 NY2d 25, 32-33; McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v Nolan & Co., 114 AD2d 165, 170, lv denied 67 NY2d 606, citing Coudert v Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, 705 F2d 78, 81). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which, in a proceeding to stay an arbitration demanded by respondent under the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to petitioners’ claim that their resignation from the NASD voided any duty they have to arbitrate respondent’s claim that, as principals of respondent’s employer, they caused respondent’s constructive discharge in retaliation for his having reported illegal trading activities to the NASD (see, Matter of Dunay v Weisglass, 54 NY2d 25, 32-33; McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel v Nolan & Co., 114 AD2d 165, 170, lv denied 67 NY2d 606, citing Coudert v Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, 705 F2d 78, 81). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 218, 705 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skelly-v-willet-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack