Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie

198 A.D.2d 87, 605 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10618
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered October 23, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application to dismiss, as time-barred, Federal and State securities claims that respondent-respondent seeks to arbitrate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ intention to resolve all disputes by arbitration being clear, dismissal of respondent’s claims pursuant to CPLR 7502 (b) would defeat the policies of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 1 et seq.; see, Volt Information Sciences v Stanford Univ., 489 US 468, 479). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of petitioner’s application on the ground that the arbitrators should decide the Statute of Limitations issue, including whether New York or Florida law applies. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie, 198 A.D.2d 87, 605 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

198 A.D.2d 87 (Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kahn v. Smith Barney Shearson, Inc.
115 F.3d 930 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
In re the Arbitration between Prudential Securities Inc.
205 A.D.2d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re the Arbitration between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & Manhard
201 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)