Warner v. U.S. Securities & Futures Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warner v. U.S. Securities & Futures Corp.

257 A.D.2d 545, 685 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 686

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 545 (Warner v. U.S. Securities & Futures Corp.) 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

Warner v. U.S. Securities & Futures Corp., 257 A.D.2d 545, 685 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered August 24, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff customer against defendant introducing stock broker to recover damages for unauthorized trades, denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied in the absence of evidence affirmatively establishing that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes (see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183). Such evidence is not provided by the agreement between plaintiff and nonparty clearing broker containing an arbitration clause and another clause stipulating that plaintiff’s introducing broker is a third-party beneficiary of such agreement. As the IAS Court stated, it is “not obvious” that the third-party beneficiary clause was meant to modify the arbitration clause, which makes no mention of defendant either by name or by function (cf., McPheeters v McGinn, Smith & Co., 953 F2d 771, 773; Mowbray v Moseley, Hallgarten, Estabrook & Weeden, 795 F2d 1111, 1117-1118). Defendant’s argument that it is a party to the agreement by definition under the introductory clause thereof defining the clearing broker as including its “affiliates” depends too much upon “implication or subtlety” for purposes of compelling arbitration with a nonsignatory (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], supra, at 184; see also, TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp. 92 NY2d 335). Concur— Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered August 24, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff customer against defendant introducing stock broker to recover damages for unauthorized trades, denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied in the absence of evidence affirmatively establishing that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes (see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 183). Such evidence is not provided by the agreement between plaintiff and nonparty clearing broker containing an arbitration clause and another clause stipulating that plaintiff’s introducing broker is a third-party beneficiary of such agreement. As the IAS Court stated, it is “not obvious” that the third-party beneficiary clause was meant to modify the arbitration clause, which makes no mention of defendant either by name or by function (cf., McPheeters v McGinn, Smith & Co., 953 F2d 771, 773; Mowbray v Moseley, Hallgarten, Estabrook & Weeden, 795 F2d 1111, 1117-1118). Defendant’s argument that it is a party to the agreement by definition under the introductory clause thereof defining the clearing broker as including its “affiliates” depends too much upon “implication or subtlety” for purposes of compelling arbitration with a nonsignatory (Matter of Waldron [Goddess], supra, at 184; see also, TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp. 92 NY2d 335). Concur— Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 545, 685 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-us-securities-futures-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack