Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co.
266 A.D.2d 133
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1999-11-30
- Topic
- intellectual-property-and-technology
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 27, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under General Business Law § 349, since the securities transactions at issue are outside the scope of the statute (see, Smith v Triad Mfg. Group, 255 AD2d 962, 964). In any event, defendants, as clearing brokers, had no duty to disclose to the introducing broker’s clients, and thus the statutory cause of action, as well as the negligence claim, was properly dismissed (see, In re Blech Sec. Litig., 928 F Supp 1279, 1295-1296).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schwarz v. Bear Stearns Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 27, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under General Business Law § 349, since the securities transactions at issue are outside the scope of the statute (see, Smith v Triad Mfg. Group, 255 AD2d 962, 964). In any event, defendants, as clearing brokers, had no duty to disclose to the introducing broker’s clients, and thus the statutory cause of action, as well as the negligence claim, was properly dismissed (see, In re Blech Sec. Litig., 928 F Supp 1279, 1295-1296). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.