York choice of law provision, which states that "his agreementĪnd its enforcement shall be governed by the laws of the State of The arbitration clause isĭirectly followed in the Securities Account Agreement by a New The breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration" and specifies The parties'Īrbitration clause provides that "ny controversy between Smithīarney and arising out of or relating to this contract or Which in turn contains an arbitration clause. Kahn refers to and incorporates a Securities Account Agreement, The governing customer agreement between Smith Barney and Petitioner's Florida offices, and terminated her account with Made her Smith Barney investments exclusively through In New York, alleging federal and state claims of fraudulent and Securities broker-dealer having its principal executive offices Petitioner Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., [n In 1989, respondent Doris Kahn commenced arbitration against Unaddressed Statute of Limitations questions. The Appellate Division for a determination on the previously Accordingly, we reverse in each case and remit to The parties have mutually agreed that New York law shall govern Neither the language of the FAA nor its underlying policies where (489 US 468), we conclude that a determinationīy the court on the Statute of Limitations question offends In light of the United States Supreme Court'sĭecision in Volt Info. Limitations questions are properly resolved by the courts (see,ĬPLR 7502). The facts that each arbitration agreement contained a New YorkĬhoice of law provision, and that, under New York law, Statute of (FAA) is a question reserved to the arbitrators, notwithstanding Pursuant to an agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act Held that the timeliness of claims sought to be arbitrated Presented is whether the Appellate Division in each case properly Separate securities transactions undertaken by two securitiesīrokers on behalf of two unrelated investors. These two appeals arise from controversies concerning This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York IN THE MATTER OF MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,įENNER & SMITH, INC. IN THE MATTER OF SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM &ĬO., INC., APPELLANT, v. IN THE MATTER OF MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. CHARLIE LUCKIE, JR., ET AL., AND DORIS KAHN, RESPONDENTS. IN THE MATTER OF SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM & CO., INC., APPELLANT, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |