Opinion
April 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On February 25, 1993, the respondent served upon the petitioner, Prudential Securities Incorporated (hereinafter Prudential), a demand for arbitration of his claims against it before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (hereinafter the NASD) by delivering the demand to the Secretary of State (see, Business Corporation Law §§ 304, 306). The Secretary of State sent the demand to CT Corporation Systems (hereinafter CT), Prudential's registered agent for service of process (see, Business Corporation Law § 305). CT received the demand for arbitration on March 5, 1993, and forwarded it to Prudential, which received it on March 11, 1993. On March 31, 1993 Prudential commenced this proceeding to stay the arbitration. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition as untimely and dismissed the proceeding.
The Supreme Court properly denied Prudential's petition to stay arbitration since it was not made within the 20-day time period for the service of such petitions (see, CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co. v Hancock, 183 A.D.2d 831; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Barbera, 117 A.D.2d 801). We agree with the Supreme Court that the 20-day time period commenced on March 5, 1993, when CT received the respondent's demand for arbitration from the Secretary of State and not on March 11, 1993, when Prudential received the respondent's demand from CT (cf., Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Messa], 111 Misc.2d 957). Since Prudential failed to apply for a stay of arbitration within 20 days of March 5, 1993, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider its contentions that the respondent's claims are barred by Federal and State Statutes of Limitation and that, pursuant to section 15 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, they are not eligible for submission to arbitration (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299; Aetna Life Cas. Co. v Stekardis, 34 N.Y.2d 182; cf., Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v Manhard, 85 N.Y.2d 193). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.