Matter of Maxx Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Krick

2024 NY Slip Op 30916(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMarch 19, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 30916(U) (Matter of Maxx Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Krick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Maxx Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Krick, 2024 NY Slip Op 30916(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Matter of Maxx Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. v Krick 2024 NY Slip Op 30916(U) March 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654556/2023 Judge: John J. Kelley 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 03/19/2024 04:56 PM INDEX NO. 654556/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JOHN J. KELLEY PART 56M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 654556/2023 In the Matter of MOTION DATE 12/19/2023 MAXX SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 Petitioner,

-v- DECISION, ORDER, AND TRYSTA KRICK, JUDGMENT

Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 were read on this motion to/for CONFIRM/DISAPPROVE AWARD/REPORT .

MAXX Sports & Entertainment Group, Inc. (MAXX), petitions pursuant to CPLR 7510 to

confirm an arbitration award dated August 30, 2023, made by an arbitrator acting under the

auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The respondent, Trysta Krick, does not

oppose the petition. The petition is granted, the award is confirmed, and the Clerk of the court

is directed to enter a money judgment in favor of MAXX in the sum of $40,838.70, plus statutory

interest from August 20, 2023.

MAXX is a career management agency and business advisor for media personalities

and broadcast talent, including those in the sports and entertainment industry. On January 22,

2020, MAXX entered into a representation contract with Krick, who is a radio and media

personality currently employed by Audacy Operations, Inc., doing business as BetQL (Audacy).

The contract had an initial term of two years, and was renewed for an additional two-year term,

thus extending the agreement until January 21, 2024. The contract provided that MAXX was

entitled to receive a 10% commission on any compensation that Krick received pursuant to any

employment agreements that she entered into during the term of her contract with MAXX,

654556/2023 MAXX SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. vs. KRICK, TRYSTA Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:56 PM INDEX NO. 654556/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

except as to any amendment or extension of Krick’s preexisting employment agreement with

Barstool Sports. The contract further provided that MAXX was entitled to receive commissions

even after the termination of the subject contract to the extent that Krick continued to receive

compensation pursuant to any employment agreement that she entered into during the term of

the subject contract, as well as any extensions of said agreements that had been entered into

during the term of the subject contract. MAXX secured Krick’s employment with Audacy

pursuant to a two-year employment contract that commenced on September 7, 2021, and was

extended from September 6, 2023 until September 6, 2024.

The contract between MAXX and Krick contained an arbitration clause, pursuant to

which the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute under the agreement in New York. After Krick

failed to pay MAXX its commissions on December 2, 2022, MAXX demanded arbitration before

the AAA. After both parties appeared at an arbitration hearing, the AAA arbitrator, in an award

dated August 30, 2023, found in favor of MAXX and against Krick, in the total principal sum of

$40,838.70, and also directed that,

“[i]n the event the option extension was exercised, and Krick and Audacy enter into an extension, modification, renewal, or spinoff of the Audacy Agreement, Krick shall pay to MAXX Sports commissions in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of monies, including but not limited to exercised stock options, licenses, franchise agreement proceeds, overtime, advances, profit-sharing advances, and all other forms of compensation (‘Compensation’) received by Krick, directly or indirectly, for a period equal to such extension, modification, renewal, or spinoff, but such payment period shall not exceed five (5) years regardless of the length of such extension, modification, renewal, or spinoff;

“In the event Krick enters into an employment agreement with an employer up to and including January 21, 2024, Krick shall pay to MAXX Sports as commissions an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of Compensation received by Krick through such employment agreement and a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of Compensation received by Krick, directly or indirectly, for a period equal to the length of time of an option to extend such agreement provided that such option is exercised prior to the termination of the Representation Agreement. In the event Krick and her employer enter into a spinoff, modification, extension, or subsequent renewal of such employment agreement negotiated during the term of the Representation Agreement, Krick shall pay to MAXX Sports as commission an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of Compensation for the length of time of such spinoff or renewal but such time period shall not exceed five (5) years.” 654556/2023 MAXX SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. vs. KRICK, TRYSTA Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:56 PM INDEX NO. 654556/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

MAXX commenced this proceeding on September 18, 2023. In an order dated

November 14, 2023 (MOT SEQ 002), this court granted MAXX’s motion pursuant to CPLR

308(5) for permission to effect service of process upon Krick by overnight delivery and regular

mail at two addresses in Washington, D.C. On November 16, 2023, MAXX properly served

Krick with process in accordance with the November 14, 2023 order. Krick has not appeared in

this proceeding.

Pursuant to CPLR 7510, the court “shall confirm an [arbitration] award upon application

of a party made within one year after its delivery to him [or her] unless the award is vacated or

modified upon a ground specified in section 7511.” The grounds specified in CPLR 7511 are

exclusive (see Bernstein Family Ltd. Partnership v Sovereign Partners, L.P., 66 AD3d 201 [1st

Dept 2009]) and it is a “well-established rule that an arbitrator’s rulings, unlike a trial court’s, are

largely unreviewable” (Matter of Falzone v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 NY3d 530, 534

[2013]). The instant proceeding to confirm the arbitration award was timely commenced on

September 18, 2023 (see CPLR 304[a]). MAXX contends that the award was proper in all

respects and that no grounds exist for modification or vacatur. The court agrees, and concludes

that MAXX is entitled both to the confirmation of the award, the entry of a money judgment in

the sum of $40,838.70, and a judgment declaring its entitlement to future payments to the extent

set forth in the arbitration award. The money judgment must bear interest from the date of the

arbitration award, that is, from August 30, 2023 (see CPLR 5002; Board of Educ. of Cent.

School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston & Cambria v Niagara-Wheatfield

Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 553, 558 [1979]; Dermigny v Harper, 127 AD3d 685, 686 [2d Dept

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

Related

Board of Education v. Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Ass'n
389 N.E.2d 104 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Dermigny v. Harper
127 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re the Arbitration between Falzone & New York Mutual Fire Insurance
939 N.E.2d 1197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Levin & Glasser, P.C. v. Kenmore Property, LLC
70 A.D.3d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Phillips v. City of New York
66 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Arbitration between Gruberg & Cortell Group, Inc.
143 A.D.2d 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 30916(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-maxx-sports-entertainment-group-inc-v-krick-nysupctnewyork-2024.