Opinion ID: 694080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal with Prejudice of Counterclaim

Text: 7 The linchpin of Creedon's second argument is that he had an unqualified right to withdraw his counterclaim at any time prior to the final entry of the award, because the NASD Code does not prohibit such conduct, but impliedly permits it by limiting sanctions to an assessment of forum fees and costs. See Code Sec. 44(g). This argument is meritless. New York law, which governs the interpretation of the contract, would preclude Creedon from voluntarily withdrawing his counterclaim at such a late date and without leave of court. Cf. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1212 (1995). Moreover, section 44 of the Code is concerned only with the setting and assignment of responsibility for the payment of the actual costs of arbitration, including fees and related administrative charges (assessments), not with the arbitrators' powers to control the proceedings by imposing sanctions, monetary or otherwise. Accordingly, we find no reversible error on this point, either.