Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 87 (Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 87, 605 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-barney-harris-upham-co-v-luckie-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack