Legal Opinion
In re the Arbitration between Prudential Securities Inc. & Pesce
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 11, 1996PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Herman Cahn, J.
Petitioners move to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503.
Respondent Pesce filed an amended statement of claim with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) on March 15, 1995, alleging six causes of action. Briefly stated, respondent claims that he placed $62,000 in an account with petitioner Prudential Securities, Inc. (Prudential) through petitioner William Prokos (Prokos), an employee of Prudential.
Pesce met Prokos when they were students at New York University. Respondent alleges that he instructed Prokos to invest the money in high…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- In Re the Arbitration Between Weinrott & CarpNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sanders v. GardnerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1998
- Shamah v. SchweigerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1998
- Tong v. S.A.C. Capital Management, LLCNew York Supreme Court · 2007