Brown v. Hossain

2024 NY Slip Op 31916(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Brown v Hossain 2024 NY Slip Op 31916(U) June 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 805097/2023 Judge: Kathy J. King Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 805097/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. KATHY J. KING PART 06 Justice X INDEX NO. 805097/2023 SANDRA BROWN, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels, and MOTION DATE Credits of ANGELA MENDEZ, deceased, 07/20/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 1 -v- AFZAL HOSSAIN, M.D., AFZAL HOSSAIN PHYSICIAN P.C., NYC DECISION + ORDER ON MEDICAL PRACTICE, LLC d/b/a GOALS AESTHETICS AND PLASTIC SURGERY, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE MOTION

Defendant. X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 01) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 were read for this motion to/for DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents, defendant NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, LLC, d/b/a GOALS

AESTHETICS AND PLASTIC SURGERY, moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action and compel

arbitration pursuant to CPLR §7501.

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

On March 23, 2023, Sandra Brown, Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels, and Credits of

Angela Mendez, deceased, filed a complaint with this Court charging the Defendant with

negligence resulting in medical malpractice, wrongful death, and a failure to provide informed

consent. Defendant move to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR

§7501.

CPLR §7501 provides that, “[a] written agreement to submit any controversy thereafter

arising or any existing controversy to arbitration is enforceable without regard to the justiciable

character of the controversy and confers jurisdiction on the courts of the state to enforce it and to

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 805097/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

enter judgment on an award. In determining any matter arising under this article, the court shall not

consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass

upon the merits of the dispute.”

In support of the motion, Defendant cites Section XI of the contract signed between the

decedent and Defendant, which states, in part: “[t]he Parties to this Agreement agree to arbitrate

any claim, dispute, controversy … including … any … claims, that may arise out of [or] relate to

this Agreement, including the enforcement, breach, or interpretation of this Agreement. By

agreeing to this Agreement, [the Parties] understand and agree that [they] are waiving their rights

to maintain other available resolution processes, such as a court action … to settle their disputes.”

Defendant further cites the language of the arbitration clause which states: “… it being the parties’

intention that all issues and disputes between the parties hereto be handled solely in arbitration and

not in a court of law or otherwise.”

Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds including (1) Defendant has failed to

properly authenticate the contract, (2) the arbitration clause does not extend to medical malpractice

lawsuits, (3) compelling arbitration would sever the claims between defendant GOALS and

defendant AFZAL HOSSAIN, M.D. and AFZAL HOSSAIN PHYSICIAN P.C., who are not

subject to the arbitration clause, and (4) enforcement of the arbitration clause would be

unconscionable.

Pursuant to CPLR §7501, parties may agree to arbitrate any claims that arise out of a

contractual agreement and may move, pursuant to CPLR §7503(a), for an application to compel

arbitration where there is an agreement. The case law is well settled that such a contractual

agreement must show a “clear, explicit and unequivocal” agreement to arbitrate. See God's

Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v. Miele Associates, LLP, 6 N.Y.3d 371, 374 (2006),

quoting In re Waldron v. Goddess, 61 N.Y.2d 181, 183, (1984). Here, despite Plaintiff’s contention

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 805097/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

that they did not agree to arbitrate medical malpractice lawsuits, the decedent signed the contract

containing the arbitration clause, which represents a “clear, explicit and unequivocal” agreement to

arbitrate for medical services rendered. This Court further notes the language in bold at the end of

the Agreement, which states: “THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION LIMITS YOUR RIGHTS,

INCLUDING YOUR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN A COURT ACTION. PLEASE READ IT

CAREFULLY PRIOR TO SIGNING.”

Plaintiff reasons that the contract, taken as a whole, only applies to payment and fees, so

the arbitration clause should only be read to apply to payment and fees. However, “a broad

arbitration clause should be given the full effect of its wording in order to implement the intention

of the parties.” Weinrott v. Carp, 32 N.Y.2d 190, 199 (1973). A court’s finding that a “reasonable

relationship” exists between the subject matter of the dispute and the subject matter of the

underlying contract will end the court’s inquiry, upon which the court must direct the parties to

arbitrate. See Nationwide General Insurance Co. v. Investors Insurance Company of America, 37

N.Y.2d 91, 96 (1975). Here, there is a clear “reasonable relationship” between the subject matter of

the dispute and the underlying contract because the dispute involves a medical malpractice claim

arising from the underlying contract for medical services, and further specifies that claims arising

thereunder, must be decided by an arbitrator. Furthermore, while this Court notes that the

arbitration clause is broad, the Court is limited to implementing the intention of the parties based

on the four corners of the contract, which is to arbitrate “without regard to the justiciable character

of the controversy.” See CPLR §7501. Based on the foregoing, the Court shall not consider

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions in opposition to the motion.

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 805097/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, and Plaintiff is

compelled to arbitrate any and all claims arising from the contract between Defendant and the

decedent.

06/03/24 DATE L ~---{ L . "'{ KATHY J. KING, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

4 of 4 [* 4]