Earnick Enterprises, Inc. v. Sterling Vision

Full title: EARNICK ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, and EDGAR HENRY et al., Appellants…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

248 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

669 N.Y.S.2d 891

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. It is undisputed that the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. § 2) governs the agreement in this case. Contrary to the appellants' contention, the dispute arises from the franchise agreement between the plaintiff corporation and the respondent Sterling Vision, Inc., and they are bound by the arbitration provision contained therein ( see, Fletcher v. Kidder, Peabody Co., 81 N.Y.2d 623, cert. denied 510 U.S. 993). Moreover, although the appellant Edgar Henry was not a signatory to the franchise agreement, as an officer of the plaintiff corporation he is bound by the arbitration provision ( see, Mosca v. Doctors Assocs., 852 F. Supp. 152).

The appellants' remaining contentions lack merit.

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.