Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C.

94 A.D.3d 680, 942 N.Y.S.2d 541

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

DecidedApril 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 680 (Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C.) 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

Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C., 94 A.D.3d 680, 942 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 2, 2011, which, in this action alleging age discrimination, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The record shows that the parties entered into an employment agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause. The agreement also provided that it could not be extended except by a writing signed by both parties. At the time of plaintiffs termination, the employment agreement had expired by its own terms, and no written agreement signed by both parties had extended it. Although plaintiff continued to work for defendant law firm after the expiration of the agreement, evincing an agreement to extend some of the provisions of the contract, that was insufficient to extend the arbitration provision without a clearly expressed intention to do so. Accordingly, since no agreement to arbitrate existed at the time of plaintiffs termination, the court improperly stayed the proceedings and directed arbitration (see Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 185 [1984]; Donnkenny Apparel v Lee, 291 AD2d 224 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32186(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 2, 2011, which, in this action alleging age discrimination, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The record shows that the parties entered into an employment agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause. The agreement also provided that it could not be extended except by a writing signed by both parties. At the time of plaintiffs termination, the employment agreement had expired by its own terms, and no written agreement signed by both parties had extended it. Although plaintiff continued to work for defendant law firm after the expiration of the agreement, evincing an agreement to extend some of the provisions of the contract, that was insufficient to extend the arbitration provision without a clearly expressed intention to do so. Accordingly, since no agreement to arbitrate existed at the time of plaintiffs termination, the court improperly stayed the proceedings and directed arbitration (see Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 185 [1984]; Donnkenny Apparel v Lee, 291 AD2d 224 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32186(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 680, 942 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-biedermann-reif-hoenig-ruff-pc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack