IN RE: Mohammad NAROOR (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: Mohammad NAROOR, et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Rizwan GONDAL, et al., Respondents-Appellants,
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Respondent-Respondent. IN RE: Rizwan Gondal, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. New York Stock Exchange, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: April 07, 2005

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, JJ.

Rizwan Gondal, appellant pro se, and for Gondal Asset Management, Inc., appellant. St. Vincent De Paul Legal Program, Inc., Securities Arbitration Clinic, St. John's University School of Law, New York (Lydie N. Pierre-Louis and Terence Gilroy of counsel), for Mohammad Naroor and Shaheen A. Qureshi, respondents. Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., New York (Hugo A. Hilgendorff IV of counsel), for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., respondent. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York (Douglas W. Henkin of counsel), for New York Stock Exchange, Karen Kupersmith, Richard Goldstein, Frank Sullivan and Patrick O'Neil, respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 28, 2004, confirming arbitration awards to petitioners Naroor and Qureshi in the principal sums of $29,601 and $15,928, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 20, 2004, which confirmed the arbitration awards and denied a cross motion to vacate the awards, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Naroor and Qureshi commenced this arbitration proceeding because of their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Gondal parties managed their respective investment accounts at Charles Schwab & Co. While the proceeding to confirm in part and vacate in part the awards was pending, the Gondal parties commenced their own proceeding against the New York Stock Exchange and others, seeking to vacate the same awards.

The Gondal parties have failed to demonstrate any of the exclusive grounds for vacating the awards, as set forth in CPLR 7511(b). By their full participation in the arbitration hearings, they waived their claims that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction over them, that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate, and that they were not served with a proper notice of intent to arbitrate (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 307, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984] ). The Gondal parties were present at all of the hearings, represented by two attorneys, and they actively participated by raising objections and cross-examining witnesses. In any event, there was a valid arbitration agreement whereby the Gondal parties stipulated that any claim arising from the contractual relationship between them and Charles Schwab & Co., or from the Gondal parties' relationship with their own clients, would be arbitrated at the New York Stock Exchange.

We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network