Dewald v. Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co.

2024 NY Slip Op 34300(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: November 29, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 655380/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Dewald v Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co. 2024 NY Slip Op 34300(U) November 29, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655380/2023 Judge: Suzanne J. Adams 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 11/29/2024 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 655380/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON.SUZANNEJ.ADAMS PART 39M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 655380/2023 JEROME DEWALD, MOTION DATE N/A Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _0_0_1_ _ - V -

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MASSMUTUAL METRO NEW YORK, STEPHEN L. DECISION + ORDER ON GROSSMAN, JAMES FAY, and JOHN DOE, MOTION

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41, 42, 43,44,46,47,48,49, 50 were read on this motion to/for COMPEL ARBITRATION

In this action, ·defendants ,Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company and MassMutual

Metro New York ("defendants") move, pursuant to CPLR 3211, 7503 (a) and 2201, and the Federal

Arbitration Act 9 USC § 3, for an order compelling arbitration and staying this action pending

resolution of the arbitration, or, in the alternative, dismissing the amended complaint. Plaintiff

Jerome Dewald opposes. Upon the foregoing documents and following oral arguments, the branch

of defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the relief for dismissal is denied as

moot.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action against all parties for unjust enrichment, misappropriation

of intellectual property, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, promissory·estoppel, breach of

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful termination (NY St Cts Elec

Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 6, amended complaint). He alleges that during the interview process

for a financial sales manager position, defendants did not ask him about his prior criminal

conviction (id). He did not sign the "A Contract" because he was unwilling to attest to the fact

655380/2023 JEROME DEWALD vs. MASSMUTUAL METRO NEW YORK ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2024 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 655380/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

that he had never been ~onvicted of a felony and had issues with the software, and it was completed

by a representative of defendants (id). He signed the "B Contract" and made investments in his

position (id.). During the FINRA _application process, plaintiff disclosed his felony criminal

charges (id.). Defendants refused to sponsor plaintiff for the FINRA series and on March 20, 2023,

verbally terminated his employment (id.). Plaintiff claims that following the termination,

defendants unlawfully confiscated his property and business intellectual property.(id.).

In support of their motion, defendants argue that plaintiff clicked "I accept" and "submit"

on the "A Contract" and the "Registration Only Contract," which included the arbitration

provisions. Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that he did not click "I accept" on the contracts, and

the arbitration clause is unconscionable and unenforceable. The arbitration provisions in the

agreements between plaintiff and defendants provides in pertinent part:

"[T]he parties mutually agree to resolve by arbitration all claims or - controversies · . . . that the Agent may have against any of the following: (a) General Agent or the Company, (b) General Agent's or Company's officers, directors, employees or agents in their capacity . . . The Federal Arbitration Act will govern the interpretation, enforcement, and all proceedings pursuant to -this Section ... Arbitrable claims include but are not limited to contract claims, tort claims, and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other governmental law, statute (including anti-discrimination statutes) ... " (see NYSCEF Doc No.8137).

New York public policy strongly supports arbitration (see American Intl. Specialty Lines

Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 35 NY3d 64, 70 [2020]). "Where there is no substantial question

whether a valid agreement [to arbitrate] was made or complied with ... the court shall direct the

parties to arbitrate ... the order shall operate to stay a pending . . . action ... (see CPLR 7503 [a]).

Thus, on a motion to compel arbitration, a court must first "determine whether parties have agreed

to submit their disputes to arbitration and, if so, whether the disputes generally come within the

655380/2023 JEROME DEWALD vs. MASS MUTUAL METRO NEW YORK ET AL Page 2 of4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2024 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 655380/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

scope of their arbitration agreement" (Sisters of St. John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v

Geraghty Constructor, Inc., 67 NY2d 997, 999 [1986]). "The agreement must be clear, explicit,

and unequivocal" (Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 115 AD3d 128,

132-133 [1st Dept 2014] [citations omitted]). CPLR 2201 provides in pertinent part that "the court

in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon .such terms

as may be just." Here, the plain language of the arbitration provision evinces the parties' intention

to arbitrate all disputes which the parties have against each other. The dispute between the parties

directly relates to claims for breach of the contract, wrongful termination, and theft of intellectual

property, which are arbitrable pursuant to the provision. The court is unpersuaded by plaintiffs

arguments and finds that based on the record, the arbitration clause is a valid and enforceable

provision of the agreement (see Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., 4 NY3d 363, 370 [2005] [An

arbitration agreement need not be signed so long as it is evident from the totality of circumstances

that the parties intended to be bound by documents containing arbitration obligations]). Thus,

arbitration and a stay of this action are required.

All remaining arguments have been considered and are either without merit or need not be

addressed given the findings above. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company and MassMutual

Metro New York's motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 and 2201 to compel arbitration and to stay this

action is granted, and·pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the amended complaint is moot and

denied; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff Jerome Dewald shall arbitrate his claims against defendants

Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company and MassMutual Metro New York in accordance with

the contract; and it is further

655380/2023 JEROME DEWALD vs. MASSMUTUAL METRO NEW YORK ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2024 04:46 PM INDEX NO. 655380/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

ORDERED that all proceedings in this action are hereby stayed, except for an application

to vacate or modify said stay; and it is further

ORDERED that either party may make an application by order to show cause to vacate or

modify this stay upon the .final determination of the arbitration.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

11/29/2024 DATE SUZANiJiliDAMS, J.S.C

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITIO .N GRANTED □ DENIE~ GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER .

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

655380/2023 JEROME DEWALD vs. MASSMUTUAL METRO NEW YORK ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]