From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Prudential Securities Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 1994
205 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

holding that nearly identical New York statutory provisions, 74 N.Y. CPLR §§ 7502(b) 7503(c), were preempted by the FAA

Summary of this case from Lefkowitz v. HWF Holdings

Opinion

June 23, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).


The IAS Court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the non-domiciliary appellant in this action to stay arbitration, where here, appellant, a signatory to a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration and Transfer (a "U-4 Form"), consented, by filing her Demand for Arbitration and Statement of Claim with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.'s New York office and by including the 20-day preclusion notice prescribed by CPLR 7503 (c) in the Demand for Arbitration, and where petitioner served the notice of petition to stay arbitration upon appellant's New York City and Washington attorneys in accordance with the express terms of CPLR 7503 (c) (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v. Shaddock, 822 F. Supp. 125, 130; Matter of Knickerbocker Ins. Co. [Gilbert], 28 N.Y.2d 57, 65).

However, the court committed reversible error in determining that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") did not preempt a New York court's jurisdiction to determine the timeliness of the appellant's claims. The FAA governs, and supplants all State law inconsistent with its express provisions, in proceedings involving interstate commerce, such as the case at bar, where a registered securities dealer has executed a U-4 Form which includes an arbitration clause (Fletcher v. Kidder, Peabody Co., 81 N.Y.2d 623, cert denied ___ US ___, 114 S Ct 554; see, Societe Generale de Surveillance v. Raytheon European Mgt. Sys. Co., 643 F.2d 863, 867). Statute of Limitations and choice of law questions arising in such a dispute must be determined by the arbitrators, rather than a court (Smith Barney Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, 198 A.D.2d 87; Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith [Manhard], 201 A.D.2d 347).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Prudential Securities Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 1994
205 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

holding that nearly identical New York statutory provisions, 74 N.Y. CPLR §§ 7502(b) 7503(c), were preempted by the FAA

Summary of this case from Lefkowitz v. HWF Holdings

holding that nearly identical New York statutory provisions, 74 N.Y. CPLR §§ 7502(b) 7503(c), were preempted by the FAA

Summary of this case from Personnel Decisions v. Business Planning Sys.
Case details for

Matter of Prudential Securities Incorporated

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Arbitration between PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 23, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
613 N.Y.S.2d 626

Citing Cases

Personnel Decisions v. Business Planning Sys.

In the absence of clear evidence the parties intended the DUAA to control, application of §§ 5702(c) and…

Merrill Lynch v. McLeod

Thus, not only contractual principles but also fairness and due process require this proceeding to be…