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

Annotate this Case
Hayes v Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C. 2012 NY Slip Op 03286 Decided on April 26, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 26, 2012
Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick, Román, JJ.
7504N 115688/10

[*1]Daniel F. Hayes, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York (Daniel J. Kaiser of
counsel), for appellant.
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York (Joan M. Gilbride
of counsel), for respondents.

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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 26, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.