# M.I.F. Securities Co. v. R. C. Stamm & Co.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 16, 1983 · 94 A.D.2d 211

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5861420

## Case

- **Full name:** M.I.F. Securities Company v. R. C. Stamm & Co.
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 16, 1983
- **Citations:** 94 A.D.2d 211; 463 N.Y.S.2d 771; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17973
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Fein
- **Judges:** Fein, Kassal, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5861420

## Opinion text

Fein, J. (dissenting).
I would affirm.
The construction placed on the U-4 application would render the arbitration clause contained therein meaningless and without purpose. The term “my firm” necessarily had to mean M.I.F. Securities Company (M.I.F.), the Amex member, not R. C. Stamm & Co. (Stamm), which was not a member. There could be no dispute between the individuals, as such, and M.I.F. Whatever their dispute with M.I.F., it encompassed disputes between M.I.F. and the collective entity Stamm, albeit Stamm was a partnership.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5861420. Public record. Not legal advice.