Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-18-1990
Abstract
Plaintiff-appellant Peter Charles Formica appeals from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J.) on January 16, 1990, denying his petition to compel arbitration before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") of claims arising from his "New Account Agreement" with defendant-appellee Malone & Associates, Inc. (hereafter "Malone"), a broker/dealer. The court ordered Formica to withdraw his pending arbitration before the AAA with prejudice and to assert his claims in an arbitration proceeding commenced by Malone before the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD").
At issue in this case is the meaning of the phrase "arbitration facility provided by the American Stock Exchange" in the parties' agreement. Formica contends that this phrase, when read in conjunction with the American Stock Exchange ("AMEX") constitution provision allowing a customer to elect arbitration before the AAA, authorizes him to arbitrate before the AAA. We hold that the phrase "arbitration facility provided by the American Stock Exchange" is ambiguous and therefore requires an examination of the intent of the parties. We therefore vacate the order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also deny Malone's motion to dismiss this appeal and to impose appellate sanctions.
Recommended Citation
Miner '56, Roger J., "Formica v. Malone & Associates, Inc., 907 F. 2d 397 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1990" (1990). Circuit Court Opinions. 294.
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/circuit_opinions/294
Comments
907 F.2d 397 (1990)
Peter Charles FORMICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MALONE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Robert Malone and Theodore Spires, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 1366, Docket 90-7127.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued May 30, 1990.
Decided July 18, 1990.
New York Law School location: File #993, Box #125