Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC v. DeLucca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC v. DeLucca

2017 NY Slip Op 3625, 150 A.D.3d 436, 51 N.Y.S.3d 417

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 4, 2017

Docket3930N 651913/16

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3625 (Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC v. DeLucca) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC v. DeLucca, 2017 NY Slip Op 3625, 150 A.D.3d 436, 51 N.Y.S.3d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 29, 2016, which granted defendant Michael Callahan’s motion to stay arbitration demanded by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Callahan entered into an employment agreement with Marcum Buchanan Associates, LLC (Marcum), which *437 contained noncompete and arbitration clauses, and which provided that Callahan’s services “are special, unique and of extraordinary character” and that the parties had “a special confidential relationship.” Such personal services contracts generally are not freely assignable (see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 482 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]; Eisner Computer Solutions v Gluckstern, 293 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 2002]). While covenants not to compete in employment contracts may be assignable without the parties’ consent (id.), that depends on the parties’ intent (see Archer Worldwide v Mansbach, 289 AD2d 349 [2d Dept 2001]). Plaintiff Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC (Buchanan), as the proponent of arbitration, “has the burden of demonstrating that the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” (Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis, P.C. v Torino Jewelers, Ltd., 44 AD3d 581, 583 [1st Dept 2007]), and has failed to provide evidence that the parties intended Callahan’s agreement with Marcum “to be assignable when it was originally executed” (Archer Worldwide at 349).

Moreover, the evidence does not support Buchanan’s contention that there was no assignment, but merely a change of name after Vincent Buchanan purchased Marcum. Vincent Buchanan himself averred that there was an assignment of “assets, rights, and liabilities” from Marcum to Buchanan, and his affidavit fails to establish that Buchanan continued as the same company after the purchase.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 29, 2016, which granted defendant Michael Callahan’s motion to stay arbitration demanded by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Callahan entered into an employment agreement with Marcum Buchanan Associates, LLC (Marcum), which *437 contained noncompete and arbitration clauses, and which provided that Callahan’s services “are special, unique and of extraordinary character” and that the parties had “a special confidential relationship.” Such personal services contracts generally are not freely assignable (see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 482 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]; Eisner Computer Solutions v Gluckstern, 293 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 2002]). While covenants not to compete in employment contracts may be assignable without the parties’ consent (id.), that depends on the parties’ intent (see Archer Worldwide v Mansbach, 289 AD2d 349 [2d Dept 2001]). Plaintiff Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC (Buchanan), as the proponent of arbitration, “has the burden of demonstrating that the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” (Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis, P.C. v Torino Jewelers, Ltd., 44 AD3d 581, 583 [1st Dept 2007]), and has failed to provide evidence that the parties intended Callahan’s agreement with Marcum “to be assignable when it was originally executed” (Archer Worldwide at 349).

Moreover, the evidence does not support Buchanan’s contention that there was no assignment, but merely a change of name after Vincent Buchanan purchased Marcum. Vincent Buchanan himself averred that there was an assignment of “assets, rights, and liabilities” from Marcum to Buchanan, and his affidavit fails to establish that Buchanan continued as the same company after the purchase.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3625, 150 A.D.3d 436, 51 N.Y.S.3d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-capital-markets-llc-v-delucca-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack