Opinion
2014-01-15
Irene MORALES, appellant, v. AMERICAN APPAREL, INC., et al., respondents. (Matter No. 1) In the Matter of Irene Morales, appellant, v. American Apparel, Inc., et al., respondents. (Matter No. 2).
Simon Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Mitchell Silberger & Knupp, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lauren J. Wachtler of counsel), for respondents American Apparel, Inc., and Dov Charney.
Simon Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Mitchell Silberger & Knupp, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lauren J. Wachtler of counsel), for respondents American Apparel, Inc., and Dov Charney.
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, New York, N.Y. (Douglas P. Catalano, Neil G. Sparber, and Meredith A. Sharoky of counsel), for respondents Robert Greene, Adrian Kowalweski, Lyndon Lea, Allan Mayer, Keith Miller, Neil Richardson, Mark Samson, and Mark A. Thornton.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for sexual harassment and negligent hiring and supervision, and a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of all claims set forth in the verified complaint in the action, the plaintiff/petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated February 10, 2012, which granted the motion of American Apparel, Inc., and Dov Charney, and the separate motion of Robert Greene, Adrian Kowalweski, Lyndon Lea, Allan Mayer, Keith Miller, Neil Richardson, Mark Samson, and Mark A. Thornton to compel arbitration and stay all further proceedings in the action pending completion of the arbitration, and denied her petition to stay arbitration and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
We affirm the order appealed from, albeit on grounds different from those articulated by the Supreme Court. “ ‘Generally, under New York statutory and case law, a court may address three threshold questions on a motion to compel or to stay arbitration: (1) whether the parties made a valid agreement to arbitrate; (2) if so, whether the agreement has been complied with; and (3) whether the claim sought to be arbitrated would be time-barred if it were asserted in State court’ ” (Da Silva v. Savo, 35 A.D.3d 647, 647, 826 N.Y.S.2d 436, quoting Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie, 85 N.Y.2d 193, 201–202, 623 N.Y.S.2d 800, 647 N.E.2d 1308; see Matter of County of Rockland [ Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 N.Y.2d 1, 6–7, 431 N.Y.S.2d 478, 409 N.E.2d 951). Here, the subject arbitration agreement is valid, the parties have complied with its terms, and the claims sought to be arbitrated are not time-barred under State law. Accordingly, the respondents' separate motions to compel arbitration and stay all further proceedings in the action pending completion of the arbitration were properly granted ( see CPLR 7503[a] ). For the same reasons, the petition to stay arbitration was properly denied and the proceeding was properly dismissed. In light of this determination, we need not address the applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The plaintiff/petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.