Smith Barney Inc. v. Heiman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith Barney Inc. v. Heiman

235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 344 (Smith Barney Inc. v. Heiman) 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 Inc. v. Heiman, 235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 29, 1995, which granted petitioner’s application to the extent of permanently staying arbitration of any of respondent’s claims based upon the acquisition of a bond purchased prior to February 20, 1989, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition to stay the arbitration is denied.

Since the New York choice of law provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not explicitly provide that the agreement "and its enforcement” would be governed by New York law, and did not otherwise expressly incorporate New York arbitration law, the question of timeliness of the claims was for the arbitrators, not the court (Hamershlag Kempner & Co. v Oestrich, 234 AD2d 172; see also, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; Goldberg v Parker, 221 AD2d 267, lv granted sub nom. Matter of Goldberg v Harwood, 87 NY2d 806). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 29, 1995, which granted petitioner’s application to the extent of permanently staying arbitration of any of respondent’s claims based upon the acquisition of a bond purchased prior to February 20, 1989, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition to stay the arbitration is denied.

Since the New York choice of law provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not explicitly provide that the agreement "and its enforcement” would be governed by New York law, and did not otherwise expressly incorporate New York arbitration law, the question of timeliness of the claims was for the arbitrators, not the court (Hamershlag Kempner & Co. v Oestrich, 234 AD2d 172; see also, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202, cert denied sub nom. Manhard v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 516 US 811; Goldberg v Parker, 221 AD2d 267, lv granted sub nom. Matter of Goldberg v Harwood, 87 NY2d 806). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-barney-inc-v-heiman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack