Summary
noting "New York's rule that threshold Statute of Limitations questions are for the courts"
Summary of this case from Golden Pacific Bancorp v. F.D.I.COpinion
December 16, 1999
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 13, 1999, which granted petitioner's application to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Brian F. McDonough for Petitioner-Respondent.
Seth E. Lipner for Respondent-Appellant.
ELLERIN, P.J., WALLACH, LERNER, ANDRIAS, SAXE, JJ.
The subject Customer Agreement, although providing for arbitration of any disputes arising thereunder, included a New York choice of law provision effectively incorporating New York's rule that threshold Statute of Limitations questions are for the courts (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193, cert denied 5 16 U.S. 811; see also, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. v. Ohnuma, 218 A.D.2d 572). Accordingly, the IAS court properly entertained the petition to stay arbitration on the ground that respondent's claims under the Customer Agreement were time-barred. As to the merits, the court's determination that respondent's claims were, in fact, time-barred is not contested.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.