Melamed v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (476 So. 2d 140, 1985)

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 453 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1984), vacated, — U.S.—, 105 S.Ct. 1830, 85 L.Ed.2d 131 (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We also have jurisdiction because Melamed declared subsection 517.241(2), Florida Statutes (1983), invalid. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

We approve Melamed in light of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985), and the subsequent vacation and remand of our contrary holding in Young.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.