Preview:

Matter of Sage, Rutty & Co., Inc. v Salzberg 2007 NY Slip Op 31406(U) June 1, 2007 Supreme Court, Erie County Docket Number: 0001942/2007 Judge: Diane Y. Devlin Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1 ]

State of New York Supreme Court : County of Erie
In the Matter of the Application of SAGE, RUTTY & CO., INC and DOUGLAS PARKER, Petitioners, Vs. DECISION INDEX NO. 2007-01942

For a Judgment Confirming the Arbitration Award Issued by the National Association of Securities Dealers, in an Arbitration Proceeding Commenced by ALICE C. SALZBERG before the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC., Respondents, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Third-Party Intervenor.

[* 2 ]

Catherine Grantier Cooley, Esq. Hodgson Russ, LLP Attorney for Petitioners 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100 Buffalo, NY 14202

R. Verle Johnson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Third-Party Intervenor 120 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10271

The Court has considered the following papers: Verified Petition dated February 26, 2007; Notice of Motion to Intervene dated April 11, 2007; Affirmation of R. Verle Johnson, Esq. dated April 11, 2007; Affirmation of Catherine Grantier Cooley, Esq. dated April 17, 2007; Affirmation of R. Verle Johnson, Esq. dated May 7, 2007; Supplemental Affirmation of Catherine Grantier Cooley, Esq. dated May 14, 2007; Answer of Third-Party Intervenor dated May 21, 2007; letters to the Court by Alice Salzberg dated March 9, 2007 and April 9, 2007. Petitioners Sage, Rutty & Co., Inc. and Douglas Parker commenced this special proceeding pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD") Rule 2130 to confirm a Stipulated Award from an NASD arbitration panel issued on December 22, 2006. Respondent Alice C. Salzberg claims that the entire award should be vacated because she entered into an agreement to settle her claims against Petitioners under duress from her attorney at the time, Douglas Foss, Esq. Third-Party Intervenor Attorney General opposes confirmation of the portion of the Stipulated Award recommending expungement of Ms. Salzberg's claims, and asks the Court to vacate that portion of the award under CPLR 7511. On July 25, 2005, Respondent Salzberg filed a Statement of Claim with the NASD, contending that Petitioners pursued financially unsuitable investments and breached their fiduciary duties. In their Answer, Petitioners denied all of Ms. Salzberg's claims. An NASD arbitration panel was set to hear evidence, but at the first scheduled
2

[* 3 ]

hearing on September 25, 2006, the parties, through their counsel, verbally entered into a settlement agreement. Respondent Salzberg contends that at the time she was under duress from her attorney to settle her claims. However, Salzberg signed the Stipulated Award drafted by the NASD arbitration panel on October 27, 2006. A portion of the Stipulated Award recommends that the Salzberg complaint be expunged from Douglas Parker's registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository ("CRD") because the panel found that "the claim, allegation, or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous" (see Verified Petition Ex. C). Pursuant to Rule 2130 of NASD procedures, Petitioners then requested that the Court direct expungement of the records, and Petitioners notified the NASD of the proceeding. The NASD declined to oppose the petition, but the Court granted the Attorney General's motion to intervene to oppose that portion of the award which recommends expungement. The purpose of the CRD system is have a centralized database where complete and accurate information on securities dealers is available to the public. Investors want access to accurate and meaningful information when they choose a broker. Brokers want their reputations to remain intact, and they want inaccurate complaints expunged from public record. The NASD and the States want to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities to both brokers and investors. Rule 2130 is an attempt to strike a balance between all these competing interests by retaining factually accurate claims and expunging false claims. The rule seeks to protect all interests by allowing for judicial review of arbitration awards that recommend expungement. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") approved Rule 2130, which outlines the instances in which expungement of CRD records is appropriate. Rule 2130 requires NASD arbitrators to make an affirmative finding that expungement is appropriate because an investor's claims were factually impossible, clearly erroneous, or false. Arbitration panels and courts should ensure that at least one of these standards
3

[* 4 ]

is met before recommending or directing expungement (see Notice 04-16, Johnson Aff. 4/11/07 Ex. 5). In a case in which parties settle an arbitration proceeding, the arbitration panel still must make affirmative findings based on one of the standards in Rule 2130, and the panel can require the submission of documents or a brief evidentiary hearing in order to make such findings (see id.). Rule 2130 promotes a type of judicial review of arbitration awards, but judicial review of arbitration awards under the CPLR is limited. New York embraces a policy supporting arbitration and discouraging judicial interference with the arbitration process and arbitration awards (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., 99 NY2d 1, 6 [2002]). An award should only be vacated under the narrow circumstances listed in CPLR 7511(b)(1), including corruption, fraud or misconduct by arbitrators, partiality of arbitrators, or that arbitrators exceeded their power. Arbitrators exceed their power if their awards are totally irrational or violative of a strong public policy (see Matter of Silverman v Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 NY2d 299 [1984]). Stipulated awards based on a settlement should "not be set aside on facts less than needed to avoid a contract, e.g., fraud, overreaching, mistake, duress, or some other ground of similar nature" (see Matter of Goldstein v Preisler, 24 AD3d 441 [2005]). In order to reconcile Rule 2130 with New York's policies supporting settlement and arbitration, courts must analyze these proceedings on a case-by-case basis, and courts should only disrupt awards or stipulated awards if there is something uniquely troubling about the dispute. In this case, there are aspects of the Stipulated Award which trouble the Court. The arbitrators found that Ms. Salzberg's claims were factually impossible or clearly erroneous, but there is not a single fact or circumstance described upon which the arbitrators base this conclusion (see Stipulated Award, Verified Petition Ex. C). A hearing was never conducted, no written settlement agreement was ever drafted, and no
4

[* 5 ]

other documents were submitted. In that sense, the arbitrators' decision on expungement is irrational because it was made without any evidentiary support. There is nothing in the award which the Court can rely upon in order to fulfill its responsibility under Rule 2130. Furthermore, the Court must be mindful of a strong public policy interest. There is a threat that in NASD disputes such as these, brokers will entice aggrieved investors to settle factually accurate claims if they agree to sign a Stipulated Award recommending expungement. This threat, similar to the threat of a strike suit in corporate matters, promotes private interests at the expense of states, potential investors, and the public generally. The judicial review mechanisms in Rule 2130 were put in place to specifically protect the public interest from this kind of threat. The lack of a discussion of the factual inaccuracies of Ms. Salzberg's claims in the Stipulated Award prevents the Court from assuring that this threat is not present. The Court is not persuaded by Petitioners' argument that similar awards and stipulated awards have been confirmed by other courts without incident. First, many of the cases which Petitioners cite occurred before adoption of Rule 2130. Additionally, the cases which Petitioners cite involve awards or stipulated awards based on hearings or some other type of fact-gathering conducted by the arbitrators. For example, petitioners cite a recent order from this District by Judge John Curran (see Cooley Supp. Aff. Ex. 1). In that case, arbitrators recommended expungement in their stipulated award because they determined that the accused broker did not even participate in the transactions alleged, making it impossible for him to be involved. Judge Curran directed for expungement of these records because there was ample evidence that the arbitrators had a rational basis for their decision, unlike the situation before this Court. Due to the uncertainty regarding the veracity of Ms. Salzberg's claim, strong public policy interests, and the unique circumstances of this proceeding, the Court is
5

[* 6 ]

unable to direct expungement of the claims from Petitioners' CRD records. However, the Court is also unable to permanently vacate the portion of the award recommending expungement because expungement could very well be appropriate under Rule 2130. At this time, there are simply no facts before the Court necessary to make a reasonable determination that one of the standards for expungement in Rule 2130 was met. Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 7511(d), the Court orders a rehearing by the arbitrators to clarify the facts and circumstances which led them to conclude that "the claim, allegation, or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous." The rehearing will be limited to the issue of expungement alone. The Court will not entertain Ms. Salzberg's claim that the entire award be vacated. Petitioners are correct that Ms. Salzberg is not entitled to her defense of duress because she had over a month from the alleged date of duress to sign the stipulated award. There is no evidence that on October 27, 2006, Ms. Salzberg signed the Stipulated Award against her free will.

Submit Order accordingly.

Hon. Diane Y. Devlin Justice of the Supreme Court DATED: June 1, 2007 Buffalo, New York

6

[* 7 ]

7



Download 2007_31406.pdf

New York Law