From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gondal v. New York Stock Exchange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2006
27 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8051.

March 9, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered January 5, 2005, in an action by plaintiffs investment advisors seeking, inter alia, a breakup of defendant New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) such that its regulatory part would be a separate entity, and vacatur of a judgment confirming an arbitration award against plaintiffs rendered in an arbitration administered by NYSE ( Matter of Naroor v. Gondal, 17 AD3d 142, appeal dismissed 5 NY3d 757), inter alia, dismissed the complaint, enjoined plaintiffs from making any further filings or motions in any way related to the matters discussed in the complaint except in connection with this appeal, and compelled arbitration of certain of plaintiffs' claims against defendants Schwab Co. and Wynne, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Rizwan Gondal, Long Island City, for appellants.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP, New York (Douglas W. Henkin of counsel), for New York Stock Exchange, Karen Kupersmith, Richard Goldstein, Frank Sullivan, Patrick O'Neil, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Michele Anthony, respondents.

Bressler, Amery Ross, New York (David J. Libowsky of counsel), for Charles Schwab Co., Inc. and Garrett Wynne, respondents.

St. Vincent De Paul Legal Program, Inc., New York (Lydie Pierre-Louis of counsel), for Mohammed Naroor and Shaheen A. Qureshi, respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ., concur.


Plaintiffs were properly compelled to arbitrate their claims relating to the service agreement alleging, in essence, that Schwab improperly terminated their use of its trading services. No issues of fact exist as to whether the arbitration clause in the service agreement was induced by fraud ( see Baker v. Paine, Webber, Jackson Curtis, Inc., 637 F Supp 419, 421). Plaintiffs' other claims are either barred by the prior judgment confirming the award ( see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Kaufman v. Eli Lilly Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455-456), barred by the absolute immunity for arbitral acts and statements enjoyed by the arbitrators, lawyers and other participants in the arbitration ( see Mireles v. Waco, 502 US 9, 11; Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209-210), or without merit.


Summaries of

Gondal v. New York Stock Exchange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2006
27 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Gondal v. New York Stock Exchange

Case Details

Full title:RIZWAN GONDAL et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 9, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1724
809 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Siskin v. Cassar

With respect to the AAA defendants, the complaint asserted causes of action under theories of negligence and…

Yong Ki Hong v. KBS Am., Inc.

ed a courtroom provides no safe harbor for defamation claims. New York courts have not limited the absolute…