Gadelkareem v Blackbook Capital Capital LLC

[*1] Gadelkareem v Blackbook Capital Capital LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 50265(U) Decided on March 4, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 4, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570891/13

Ahmed A. Gadelkareem, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Blackbook Capital Capital LLC, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (James E. D'Auguste, J.), dated September 19, 2014, which granted defendant's motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

Per Curiam.

Order (James E. D'Auguste, J.), dated September 19, 2014, affirmed, without costs.

Upon being hired by the defendant securities firm in July 2013, plaintiff executed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer Form (Form U—4), which contained a broad arbitration clause requiring plaintiff "to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise" between the parties. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the arbitration agreement was not negated by the New York choice of law and consent to jurisdiction provisions of the parties' August 26, 2013 formal employment contract, which, significantly, contained "no express denial of the agreement to arbitrate" (Isaacs v Westchester Wood Works, 278 AD2d 184, 185 [2000]; see Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 69 AD3d 439 [2010]; see also Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd. v. Waxfield Ltd., 424 F3d 278, 284 [2nd Cir 2005] ["we cannot nullify an arbitration clause unless the forum selection clause specifically precludes arbitration"]). Furthermore, since the agreement to arbitrate does not vary or contradict the provisions of the subsequent employment agreement, the merger clause set forth in the employment agreement cannot be read as expressing an intent to revoke retroactively the parties' arbitration agreement (see Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 600 [1997]).

There being no serious dispute that plaintiff's underlying claim falls squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement (see Flanagan v Prudential-Bache Sec., 67 NY2d 500 [1986]), the court properly stayed the action and compelled arbitration.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 04, 2015