Opinion
February 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
Arbitration was sought in this case pursuant to the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the National Association of Securities Dealers. Section 15 of that Code provides: "No dispute, claim or controversy shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under the Code where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the act or dispute, claim or controversy. This section shall not extend applicable statutes of limitations, nor shall it apply to any case which is directed to arbitration by a court of competent jurisdiction."
It was within the court's province to determine the applicability of this rule to the within claims and stay arbitration of those claims which arose more than six years before the claims were submitted to arbitration. This rule is an eligibility requirement rather than a statute of limitations, and its applicability must therefore be determined by the court (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v. DeChaine, 194 A.D.2d 472; Matter of Prudential Bache Sec. v. Archard, 179 A.D.2d 652, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 754). We therefore find that the IAS Court properly stayed the arbitration of those claims which arose more than six years prior to their submission to arbitration.
However, as to the remaining claims, the IAS Court incorrectly found that, under CPLR 7502 (b), the courts were also the proper forum for determining the applicable statute of limitations. The parties' intention to resolve all disputes by arbitration is made clear by the agreement to arbitrate. In such circumstance, the policy of the Federal Arbitration Act requires that the applicability of a statute of limitations be decided by the arbitrators (see, Smith Barney Harris Upham Co. v. Luckie, 198 A.D.2d 87).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.