From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amivest Corporation v. Morgantos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1991
178 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 10, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.).


In an arbitration commenced by appellant before the New York Stock Exchange, respondent alleged that appellant's purported agent, one Carlos Civelli, was without authority to act on appellant's behalf. After appellant refused the arbitrator's request to produce Civelli to testify on this issue respondent issued a subpoena pursuant to New York Stock Exchange Arbitration Rules § 619 (f), which appellant sought to quash for various reasons, including that it had the right to produce a knowledgeable representative of its own choosing to testify. Movant failed to demonstrate that its proposed alternative representative had any knowledge on the subject of Civelli's authority (see also, Matter of Standard Fruit S.S. Co. v Waterfront Commn. of N.Y. Harbor, 43 N.Y.2d 11). We have examined appellant's other arguments and find they are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Amivest Corporation v. Morgantos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1991
178 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Amivest Corporation v. Morgantos

Case Details

Full title:AMIVEST CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MORGANTOS N.V., Appellant, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 10, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 39

Citing Cases

23/23 Communications Corp. v. General Motors Corp.

For example, in Castro v Alden Leeds ( 144 A.D.2d 613, 615 [2d Dept 1988]), defendant's vice-president…