Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co, Inc. v. Luckie

In Smith Barney. Harris Upham & Co., Inc v. Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193 (1995) the case involved an arbitration agreement and the court determined that the statute of limitations to be applied for a cause of action is the same as the one to be used for arbitration proceedings. The Court of Appeals distinguished between the site of the plaintiff's economic loss and the location of the defendant's securities brokerage company, finding that a cause of action for fraud accrues in the State in which the loss occurred. (See id. at 207.) The New York Court of Appeals held that the choice of law clause which provided that New York law would govern "'the agreement and its enforcement'" (emphasis in original) demonstrated an intention to arbitrate only to the extent permitted by New York law. Id., at 202. It explained that: "Although the parties broadly agreed to arbitrate "any controversy" arising from the customer agreements, that clause--like all the other provisions in the contract-was subject to the parties' additional qualification that New York State law provides the basis of decision for questions concerning the agreement, but more critically its enforcement....the parties adopted as binding New York's rule that threshold Statute of Limitations questions are for the courts". Id.