New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Goodbody & Co.
| Citation | 345 N.Y.S.2d 58,42 A.D.2d 556 |
| Parties | , 1973-2 Trade Cases P 74,682 NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOODBODY & CO. et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1973 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
R. E. Brooks, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
P. P. Kenny, P. N. Leval, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and MARKEWICH, NUNEZ, KUPFERMAN and LANE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 19, 1973, which inter alia denied plaintiff's motion to strike certain demands in the bill of particulars, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 28, 1973, so far as appealed from, which denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss specified affirmative defenses and counterclaims, reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion granted.
The affirmative defenses and counterclaims set forth fit into two general categories. One group of defenses alleges violation of federal antitrust laws and the second group of affirmative defenses and counterclaims allege violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
A violation of federal antitrust laws may be asserted as a defense in a state action where the plaintiff, in order to prove a prima facie case, must also inevitably prove an illegal act (Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227, 29 S.Ct. 280, 53 L.Ed. 486; City Trade & Indus., Ltd. v. New Central Jute Mills Co., Ltd., 25 N.Y.2d 49, 302 N.Y.S.2d 557, 250 N.E.2d 52). However, where the antitrust violation is collateral to the main issue in the complaint, it cannot remain as a viable defense (Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475; Bruce's Juices v. American Can Co., 330 U.S. 743, 67 S.Ct. 1015, 91 L.Ed. 1219; Small v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U.S. 248, 45 S.Ct. 300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Refrigeration Sales Co. v. York Corp., 32 Misc.2d 231, 223 N.Y.S.2d 116, aff'd 18 A.D.2d 1140, 239 N.Y.S.2d 863).
The agreement in the case at bar does not on its face violate antitrust laws and accordingly those defenses must fall.
The second category of defenses and counterclaims involves alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1934. These are clearly not cognizable in a state action since the statute specifically provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction of these matters (15 U.S.C.A. § 78aa)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whelan v. Toughman, Inc.
...533[ 4th Dept 1961]; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Rubenfeld, 48 A.D.2d 428, 370 N.Y.S.2d 943 [2nd Dept 1975]; New York Stock Exch. v. Goodbody & Co., 42 A.D.2d 556, 345 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept 1973] (“where the antitrust violation is collateral to the main issue in the complaint, it cannot remain as a ......
-
Banque Indosuez v. Pandeff
...Western Capital and Securities, Inc. v. Knudsvig, 768 P.2d 989, 992 [Utah 1989] 1.) This court, in New York Stock Exchange v. Goodbody & Co., 42 A.D.2d 556, 345 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1973], without citing precedent or expressing a ratio decidendi, found federal jurisdiction exclusive and dismissed t......
-
X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v. Rivergate Corp.
...212 N.Y.S.2d 871 [Sup.Ct., Erie County], mod. on other grounds 14 A.D.2d 728, 218 N.Y.S.2d 533; see also, New York Stock Exch. v. Goodbody & Co., 42 A.D.2d 556, 345 N.Y.S.2d 58 ["where the antitrust violation is collateral to the main issue in the complaint, it cannot remain as a viable def......
-
Azalea Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Sargoy
...Applachian Power Company v. Region Properties, Inc., 364 F.Supp. 1273, n. 11 at 1278 (W.D.Va.1973); N.Y. Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Goodbody & Co., 42 A.D.2d 556, 345 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1973); Polycast Technology Corporation v. Rohm & Haas Company, 305 A.2d 323 (Del.1973). Cf. Big Top Stores, Inc. v......