Opinion
No. 570017/15.
03-04-2015
Ahmed A. GADELKAREEM, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BLACKBOOK CAPITAL LLC, Defendant–Respondent.
Opinion
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 A.D.2d 184, 185 [2000] ; see Edgewater Growth Capital Partners, L.P. v. Greenstar N. Am. Holdings, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 439 [2010] ; see also Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd. v. Waxfield Ltd., 424 F.3d 278, 284 [2nd Cir2005] [“ “we cannot ify 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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 500 [1986] ), the court properly stayed the action and compelled arbitration.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.