Steinberg v. W.J. Nolan & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinberg v. W.J. Nolan & Co.

18 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5026

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

DecidedMay 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 244 (Steinberg v. W.J. Nolan & 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

Steinberg v. W.J. Nolan & Co., 18 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[245]*245Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 9, 2004, insofar as it denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the third-party action and compel arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, further prosecution of the third-party action stayed pending arbitration of the remaining issues in accordance with the Rules of the New York Stock Exchange, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the third-party action is for contribution and indemnification, it is not contractually based, but instead arises out of the allegations in the main complaint (cf. FSP, Inc. v Societe Generate, 350 F3d 27 [2d Cir 2003]). As such, the third-party dispute stems from underlying allegations of dishonesty on the part of those who trade in securities. Since the controversy involves the Exchange-related business of a member organization of the New York Stock Exchange and its officers, board of directors and employees, arbitration at third-party defendants’ election was required under the Exchange’s Constitution and Rules (see Spear, Leeds & Kellogg v Central Life Assur. Co., 85 F3d 21 [2d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 1040 [1996]). Concur— Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ. [See 6 Mise 3d 1003(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51709(U) (2004).]

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

[245]*245Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 9, 2004, insofar as it denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the third-party action and compel arbitration, unanimously modified, on the law, further prosecution of the third-party action stayed pending arbitration of the remaining issues in accordance with the Rules of the New York Stock Exchange, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the third-party action is for contribution and indemnification, it is not contractually based, but instead arises out of the allegations in the main complaint (cf. FSP, Inc. v Societe Generate, 350 F3d 27 [2d Cir 2003]). As such, the third-party dispute stems from underlying allegations of dishonesty on the part of those who trade in securities. Since the controversy involves the Exchange-related business of a member organization of the New York Stock Exchange and its officers, board of directors and employees, arbitration at third-party defendants’ election was required under the Exchange’s Constitution and Rules (see Spear, Leeds & Kellogg v Central Life Assur. Co., 85 F3d 21 [2d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 1040 [1996]). Concur— Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ. [See 6 Mise 3d 1003(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51709(U) (2004).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 244, 793 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-wj-nolan-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack