Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. DeChaine
| Decision Date | 24 June 1993 |
| Parties | MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Ray J. DeCHAINE, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before WALLACH, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, ROSS and KASSAL, JJ.
Order of Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1992, which granted petitioners' application for a stay of arbitration to the extent of permanently staying arbitration of five of respondent's six claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The interpretation that has been given section 15 of the National Association of Securities Dealers Code of Arbitration Procedure--that such is not a statute of limitations but a substantive eligibility requirement limiting the range of disputes the parties agreed to arbitrate (Matter of Prudential Bache Sec. v. Archard, 179 A.D.2d 652, 579 N.Y.S.2d 890, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 754, 587 N.Y.S.2d 906, 600 N.E.2d 633)--should be adopted for the identically worded Rule 603 of the New York Stock Exchange Arbitration Rules, and the timeliness of respondent's demand for arbitration left to the courts. Respondent's reliance on Matter of Conticommodity Servs. [Philipp & Lion], 613 F.2d 1222 does not avail in view of the more recent decision in Volt Information Sciences v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 holding that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt a choice of state law to govern the arbitration. Under New York Law, which the parties' agreement specifically designates, courts are authorized to stay arbitration if the claim would have been time-barred had it been asserted in court (CPLR 7502[b]. We also agree with the IAS court because Rule 603 is not a statute of limitations, it cannot be tolled by allegations of fraud (Jones & Co. v. Sorrells, 957 F.2d 509, 512-513).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PaineWebber Inc. v. Bybyk
...that the court must determine is satisfied before directing a claim to arbitration. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. DeChaine, 194 A.D.2d 472, 600 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1st Dep't), appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 657, 604 N.Y.S.2d 556, 624 N.E.2d 694 (1993); PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann......
-
PaineWebber, Inc. v. Landay
...Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ohnuma (Sumi), ___ A.D.2d ___, 630 N.Y.S.2d 724 (1 Dept.1995); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. DeChaine, 194 A.D.2d 472, 600 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1 Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 657, 624 N.E.2d 694, 604 N.Y.S.2d 556 (1993); Prudential Bach......
-
PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi
...Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ohnuma, 630 N.Y.S.2d 724, 725 (N.Y.App.Div.1995); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. DeChaine, 194 A.D.2d 472, 600 N.Y.S.2d 459, 460, leave to appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 657, 604 N.Y.S.2d 556, 624 N.E.2d 694 Thus, our first task is to......
-
Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hause
...201 A.D.2d 347, 607 N.Y.S.2d 640, revd in part on other grounds, 85 N.Y.2d 193, 623 N.Y.S.2d 800, 647 N.E.2d 1308; Merrill Lynch v. DeChaine, 194 A.D.2d 472, 600 N.Y.S.2d 459, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 657, 604 N.Y.S.2d 556, 624 N.E.2d 694). Thus, the question of its applicability is really a que......