Opinion
October 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Respondent's demand for arbitration is not barred by the "exchange-relatedness doctrine" that was applied in Paine, Webber, Jackson Curtis v Chase Manhattan Bank ( 728 F.2d 577) and Haviland v Goldman, Sachs Co. ( 947 F.2d 601, cert denied sub nom. Aron Co. v Haviland, ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 1995). Petitioner is a member of the New York State Stock Exchange (NYSE), and the dispute over the American Depository Receipts, public traded securities, "aris[es] in connection with the business of [petitioner]" (NYSE rule 600 [a]). We perceive no danger that permitting this arbitration to proceed "would extend without justification the congressional mandate of [Exchange] self-regulation" (Paine, Webber, Jackson Curtis v Chase Manhattan Bank, supra, at 581). The underlying issue concerns the alleged wrongful conduct of the petitioner, the party who has agreed to be bound by the NYSE's regulations (see, Pearce v Hutton Group, 828 F.2d 826), and is therefore clearly arbitrable under the Exchange rule.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.