From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barone v. Haskins

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2015
132 A.D.3d 1422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

1095 CA 14-02006.

10-09-2015

Antonia BARONE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. James D. HASKINS, Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc., Doing Business as Commonwealth Financial Network, Defendants–Appellants, Lincoln National Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Paduano & Weintraub LLP, New York City (Katherine B. Harrison of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. John J. Flaherty, Williamsville, for Plaintiff–Respondent.


Paduano & Weintraub LLP, New York City (Katherine B. Harrison of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.

John J. Flaherty, Williamsville, for Plaintiff–Respondent.

Opinion

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the General Business Law. James D. Haskins and Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc., doing business as Commonwealth Financial Network (defendants), brought a motion seeking, inter alia, to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a). We conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that Matter of Brady v. Williams Capital Group, L.P., 14 N.Y.3d 459, 902 N.Y.S.2d 1, 928 N.E.2d 383 applies in the financial/investment industry context (see generally Green Tree Fin. Corp.Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 88–91, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 ). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration on the ground that arbitration in this case would be financially prohibitive to plaintiff without first directing plaintiff to apply for a waiver of the arbitration fee charged by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for that purpose before deciding the motion pursuant to the factors set forth in Brady, id. at 467, 902 N.Y.S.2d 1, 928 N.E.2d 383.

SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barone v. Haskins

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2015
132 A.D.3d 1422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Barone v. Haskins

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIA BARONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES D. HASKINS, COMMONWEALTH…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Oct 9, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 1422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
17 N.Y.S.3d 665
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7418

Citing Cases

Mariglio v. Berthel Fisher & Co.

123 Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to compel arbitration,…

Barone v. Haskins

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of…