Summary
In Goldberg v. Parker, ___ A.D.2d ___, 634 N.Y.S.2d 81 (App.Div. 1st Dep't. 1995), decided after Luckie/Manhard, the court held that, "in the absence of an agreement between the broker and the customer wherein the parties designate New York law to govern the agreement and its enforcement, the matter of timeliness of claims under NASD § 15 of the Code of Arbitration is for the arbitrator to decide, not the court."
Summary of this case from Westmoreland Capital Corp. v. FindlayOpinion
November 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
In the absence of an agreement between the broker and the customer wherein the parties designate New York law to govern the agreement and its enforcement, the matter of timeliness of claims under section 15 of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Code of Arbitration Procedure is for the arbitrator to determine, not the court ( see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193, 202). Here, there was no agreement between the parties; arbitration is sought solely because the broker/dealer is bound by the terms of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure as a registered broker/dealer.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.