Serino v Lipper
2008 NY Slip Op 08195 [55 AD3d 472]
October 28, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 10, 2008


Matthew Serino et al., Appellants,
v
Kenneth Lipper,Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[*1]Kirby McInerney LLP, New York (Mark A. Strauss of counsel), for appellants.

Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C., New York (Jeremy H. Temkinof counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 7, 2007,which granted the motion of defendant Kenneth Lipper to compel arbitration of plaintiffs'putative class action suit before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted Lipper's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA, where theparties' partnership agreement contained a broad arbitration clause, requiring, among otherthings, that "[a]ll disputes and questions whatsoever" arising under the agreement should besubmitted to arbitration, either before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) orthe AAA. The question of whether NASD rules prohibit class arbitration even before the AAA isa question for the arbitrator (see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d39 [1997]; Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle, 539 US 444 [2003]; Vaughn vLeeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C., 2005 WL 1949468, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 16792 [SD NY2005]).

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Lipper's involvement in other cases related to thefactual circumstances of this case constituted a waiver of his right to seek to compel arbitration(see Stark v Molod Spitz DeSantis & Stark, P.C., 9 NY3d 59, 66-67 [2007] [court actionmust be clearly inconsistent with later claim that the parties must arbitrate claims]; Flynn vLabor Ready, 6 AD3d 492 [2004]). Conversely, plaintiffs are not judicially estopped fromopposing the motion to compel arbitration merely because they chose not to oppose such motion[*2]made by other defendants whom plaintiffs believed werejudgment proof (see e.g. Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d435, 436 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Catterson, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.