IFILED; NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/25/2015 12T4T NO. 45 NYSCEP DOC,

? *

INDEX NO. '651714/2015

RECEIVED NYSCEP: 11/25/2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ~ NEW YORK COUNTY

CO z o CO

Si K O

uiZ

si OU.

§z

ui K

3 U.

UI Q.-(0 Ul oc w Ul CO <

z o

g

PRESENT: IMANUEL J . M E N D E Z Justice

P A R T 1 3

In ths Matter of the Arbitration between

MEYERS ASSOCIATES. L.P. and BRUCE MEYERS, Petitioners.

-against-

MARLON VIGDOROV. Respondent.

INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO.

651714/15 08-12-2015

001

The following papers, numbered 1 to 8 were read on this motion to/for vacate an arbitration award:

Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause — Affidavits - Exhibits ... Answering Affidavits — Exhibits oross motion Replying Affidavits

PAPEH8 NUMBERED

1 -4 6 • 6. 7- 8

Cross-Motion: X Yes No

Upon a reading of the foregoing cited papers, it is ordered and adjudged tliat tttis petition pursuant to CPLR Article 7 5 , to vacate tliat portion of the Decision and Award in the FINRA arbitration dated April 16, 2015 , FINRA Case No. 13 -01185 . which dismissed Petitioner IVIEYERS A S S O C I A T E S L.P. 's claims for indemnifioation and contribution against the Respondent, is denied. It is ordered that Respondent's cross-motion seeking to confirm the FINFIA panel 's Apri l 16, 2015 Decision and Award , is granted.

Petitioners are a securities brolcerage firm licensed by the Financial Service Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the brolcerage firm's C E O . Respondent was registered with the Petitioner as a stocic brolcer. IVIeyer Associates, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as "Meyers Associates") was found liable to Dana and Barry Goodman (hereinafter referred to as "the Goodmans) for a FINRA arbitration award dated March 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 , FINflA Case No. 10-05361. in the amount of $551,000.00 (Pet. Exh. E). The Arbitrators found that Meyers Associates were liable as a result of the mishandling of the Goodmans' customer accounts.

Meyers Associates brought a FINRA arbitration, under FINRA Case No. 13-01185, naming the Respondent which included claims for indemnification and contribution for losses sustained in the Goodmans' arbitration filed under FINRA Case N o . 10 -05361 . Respondent asserted counterclaims against Bruce Meyers, individually, in the FINRA ' arbitration brought by Meyers Associates under FINRA Case No. 13 -01185 .

A hearing was conducted over the course of four days, from March 3 0 , 2015 through April 2 , 2 0 1 5 . On April 16, 2015 , a Decision and Award (Pet. Exh. B), was rendered under FINRA Case No. 13-01185 and the FINRA panel denied ail of Meyers Associates' claims. The FINRA panel found thet Meyers Associates was liable for $11,000.00 in compensatory damages to the Respondent. The third-party claims asserted by the Respondent against Bruce Meyers individually were denied in their entirety. The April 16, 2 0 1 5 FINRA Decision and Award specificaily states as to Arbitration No. 10 -05361 . "No credible evidence was presented at this hearing that Respondent Marlen Vigdorov was responsible for damages in that arbitration."

Petitioners seek an Order pursuant to CPLR Article 75, vacating that portion of the Decision and Award in the HNRA arbitration dated April 16. 2015, under FINRA Case No. 13-01185. which dismissed Petitioner MEYERS ASSOCIATES L.P.'s claims for indemnification and contribution against the Respondent, as entered in manifest disregard of the law.

Petitioners argue that the FINRA panel of arbitrators decision was in manifest disregard of the law and that the facts cleariy establish that Respondent handled the Goodmans' transactions for the relevant time period that resulted in losses. Petitioners contend that the undisputed evidence established that Goodmans' account was mishandled or churned, and that Respondent's only defense was that a more senior broker gave him the recommendations that were passed on to the customers. Petitioners assert that the panel in rendering its decision and award ignored that Respondent failed to comply with NSAD and FINRA rules and guidelines. Petitioners also argue that the FINRA panel failed to apply precedent, stating that Respondent owed a special duty to the Goodmans and in making recommendations he may not rely blindly on the issuer of information, or delegate his obligation to refrain from churning.

It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. A party seeking to vacate an award bears a heavy burden (Frankel v. Sardis, 76 A.O. 3d 136. 904 N.Y.S. 2d 18 [1" Dept.. 20101). "A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one." (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear. Inc.. 6 N.Y. 3d 471. 846 N.E. 2d 1201. 813 N.Y.S. 2d 691 [2006]). "Manifest disregard of the law is a severely limited doctrine. It is a doctrine of last resort limited to rare occurrences of apparent egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrators...to modify or vacate an award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law. a court must find both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principal yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit and cleariy applicable to the case" (McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Securities. Inc. v. Ferrucci. 67 A.D. 3d 405, 889 N.Y.S. 2d 134 [1'* Dept., 2009] citing to Wien & Malkin LLP V. Helmsley-Spear. Inc., 6 N.Y. 3d 471, supra). There is no basis for the conclusion that arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by an award holding only the brokerage firm and not the employee-broker liable to a customer for losses caused by the employee-broker (Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Afridi, 13 A.D. 3d 248, 788 N.Y.S. 2d 11 [1** Dept., 2004]).

Petitioners have not stated a basis to vacate that portion of the Decision and Award in the FINRA arbitration dated April 16, 2015, FINRA Case No. 13-01185. which dismissed Petitioner MEYERS ASSOCIATES L.P.'s claims for indemnification and contribution against the Respondent, resulting from a manifest disregard of the law. Petitioners have not established that the FINRA panel ignored or refused to apply a governing principal or law that was explicit and applicable to the case.

Respondent's cross-motion seeks to confirm the FINRA panel's April 16, 2015 Decision and Award, FINRA Case No. 13-01185, that dismissed the Petitioner's claims, awarded him $11,000.00 in damages, and expunged certain claims from his Central Registration Depository ("CRD").

Pursuant to CPLR i 7510 "the court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery..., unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511." Pursuant to CPLR S 7S14(a) "a judgment shall be entered upon confirmation of an award."

Respondent has stated a basis to confirm the arbitration award. Peti'tioners having opposed the cross-motion and submitting to oral argument had sufficient notice of the arguments asserted and have not demonstrated prejudice resulting from alleged untimeliness.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75, to vacate that portion of the Decision and Award in the FINRA aribltration dated April 16. 2015, under RNRA Case No. 13-01185, which dismissed Petitioner MEYERS ASSOCIATES L.P.'s claims for indemnification and contribution against the Respondent, Is denied, and it is further,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Respondents' cross-motion seeking to. confirm the Decision and Award in the FINRA arbitration dated April 16. 2015, under FINRA Case No. 13-01185, is granted, and it is further,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Decision and Award in the FINRA arbitration dated April 16, 2015. under FINRA Cass No. 13-01185. rendered in favor of the Respondent and against MEYERS ASSOCIATES L.P.. Is confirmed, and it is further.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that references of the reason for termination and the termination explanation to MARLEN VIGDOROV in FINRA Aititration Case Number 10-05361 titieid, Barry Goodman and Dana Goodman v. Meyers Associates, L.P., maintained by the Central Registration Depository ("CRD") be expunged from MARLEN VIGDOROV (CRD #5102284), CRD's registration records, and it is further.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Reason for Termination and Termination Explanation from Section 3, of MARLEN VIGDOROV's (CRD #5102284), Form U5. filed on April 19, 2013, by MEYERS ASSOCIATES, L.P. and maintained by tiie CRD, shall be amended with the Reason for Termination Amended to "Voluntary" and the Termination Explanation appearing blank, upon MARLEN VIGDOROV's fowarding a copy of the Decision and Award In the FINRA arbitration dated April 16, 2015. FINRA Case No. 13-01185 to FINRA's Registration and Disclosure Department for amendments to be incorporated into his CRD records, and it is further,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Respondent. MARLEN VIGDOROV. have judgment and does recover from Petitioner, MEYERS ASSOCIATES L.P., in the amount of $11,000 plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum calculated from the date of the award. April 16. 2015, until entry of judgment, as computed by the clerk, in the amount of $ 5^^. together with costs and disbursements as taxed by the c:terk in the amount of $ \A)^ iV^y- 3^. ail totaling $ [ / ^ d=>.t>l . and that the Respondent have execution therefor: and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordin^^ | | ^

ENTER: ^ 25 2015

MANUEL J . MENDEZ, Dated: September 8. 2015 , . , , ^ ' ^ - 9 ' »'«Al>."JEL J . MENDEZ

^ V ciMAi n iSPOSmON • NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

MEYERS ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND BRUCE MEYERS

PlaintifiW etitioner

MARLON VIGDOROV

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

^^/n lit/

Todd A. Zuclcerbroad, P.A. / 40 SE 5th Street Suite 400, ^ C i ^ E O

Boca Raton, FL 33432 ^ a O ^ ^ ^ \ 6 Phone:561-801.3408 ^ ^^Q^ Attorney for respondent h Q ' . »/»S ^