Legal Opinion

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Bokelmann

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1968PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSamuel M. Gold, J.

Plaintiff moves for temporary injunction and defendants move by separate motion for stay pending arbitration. The motions Nos. 77 and 103 of December 11, 1967 are considered together.

Plaintiff and defendant Hirsch & Co. are members of the New York Stock Exchange. There is no question that at the instance of either of those parties the grievance must be determined by arbitration. Defendant Bokelmann is a registered representative. As between plaintiff and a registered representative, arbitration is also required at the instance of either of those parties. As between plaintiff and the defendant…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re the Arbitration Between Willard Alexander, Inc. & GlasserNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Shay v. 746 Broadway Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1978
  3. New England Petroleum Corp. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Roodveldt, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API