Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Egan v. Regeneron Pharm.

    Civil Action 22-cv-1981(PGS) (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2023)

    Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541, 140 N.Y.S.3d 699 (1st Dep't 2021) (quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 529 (2019)). In order to delegate an arbitrability question to an arbitrator, there must be clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to do so. First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944-945 (1995).

  2. Brooks v. Lang Yang

    216 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 14 times

    The terms were "reasonably conspicuous," and plaintiff was required to affirmatively agree to them. Moreover, parties "may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties’ agreement does so by ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence" ( Revis v. Schwartz, 192 A.D.3d 127, 134–135, 140 N.Y.S.3d 68 [2d Dept. 2020], affd 38 N.Y.3d 939, 165 N.Y.S.3d 14, 185 N.E.3d 496 [2022], quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 524, 530, 202 L.Ed.2d 480 [2019] see alsoNewton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541–542, 140 N.Y.S.3d 699 [1st Dept. 2021] ). The terms of the agreement make clear that plaintiff agreed to delegate the determination of whether his claim is subject to arbitration, including whether it covers plaintiff's claim at all, to the arbitrator.

  3. Curtis v. Marino

    No. 2022-00499 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 27, 2022)

    The contractual shortening of the statute of limitations for plaintiff's claims under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Law to one year is "inherently reasonable" (Ortegas, 156 A.D.3d at 580 [limitations period shortened to six months]; see also Executive Law § 297[5] [one year to file administrative complaints]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-109[e] [same]). Furthermore, to the extent the agreement requires arbitration of plaintiff's discrimination claims, it is not unconscionable as arbitration offered plaintiff an opportunity to pursue his claims (see Newton v LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2021]). We also reject plaintiff's contention that CPLR 7515, which bars mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims only prospectively (CPLR 7515[b][i]), and post-dates the arbitration agreement, requires invalidation of the arbitration provision on public policy grounds (see Newton, 192 A.D.3d at 54).

  4. Curtis v. Marino

    201 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The contractual shortening of the statute of limitations for plaintiff's claims under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Law to one year is "inherently reasonable" ( Ortegas, 156 A.D.3d at 580, 65 N.Y.S.3d 693 [limitations period shortened to six months]; see also Executive Law § 297[5] [one year to file administrative complaints]; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–109[e] [same]). Furthermore, to the extent the agreement requires arbitration of plaintiff's discrimination claims, it is not unconscionable as arbitration offered plaintiff an opportunity to pursue his claims (seeNewton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541, 140 N.Y.S.3d 699 [1st Dept. 2021] ). We also reject plaintiff's contention that CPLR 7515, which bars mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims only prospectively ( CPLR 7515[b][i] ), and post-dates the arbitration agreement, requires invalidation of the arbitration provision on public policy grounds (see Newton, 192 A.D.3d at 54, 140 N.Y.S.3d 699).

  5. Urban v. 35 E. 19th St. Med.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 34522 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    The Agreement sets forth an exhaustive list of "claims covered by the agreement" which includes, inter alia, "claims for... discrimination" and "claims under any and all federal, state, or municipal statutes regulations, or ordinances, including but not limited to laws that prohibit discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in employment pursuant to any federal, state, or local fair employment or right to leave laws" (NYSCEF Doc. 8). There is no showing that the Agreement is unconscionable to the extent it requires arbitration of such claims (Newtonv LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2021]).

  6. Acevedo v. Citibank

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 24091 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    "Generally, '[w]hen the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract [and]... possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue.'" Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541 (1st Dep't 2021) (quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 529 (2019)). Similarly, "[w]here there is a broad arbitration clause and the parties' agreement specifically incorporates by reference the AAA rules providing that the arbitration panel shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, courts will leave the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators."

  7. Emily Wu v. Uber Tech.

    78 Misc. 3d 551 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding with respect to materially identical version of Uber’s terms: "The arbitration agreement, in short, is not hidden or disguised; rather, it is clear and conspicuous such that a prudent user would be on notice of it"

    "Generally, ‘[w]hen the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract [and] ... possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue.’ " Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. , 192 A.D.3d 540, 541, 140 N.Y.S.3d 699 (1st Dep't 2021) (quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 524, 529, 202 L.Ed.2d 480 (2019) ).

  8. Williamson v. Alexander

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34503 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Plaintiff, in reply, argues that the arbitration agreement contained in the January 2021 Terms should not be retroactively applied to plaintiffs April 25, 2019 accident as at matter of public policy. In support, plaintiff relies on Newton v LVMH Most Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. (192 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept. 2021]), arguing that the First Department, refused to retroactively apply CPLR 7515 to an incident that predated the statute out of public policy concerns. Plaintiff argues that allowing Uber to solicit accident victims to enter into an arbitration agreement after an accident takes place and then to use that against them is predatory and should be disallowed.

  9. Curtis v. Marino

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 499 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    The contractual shortening of the statute of limitations for plaintiff's claims under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Law to one year is "inherently reasonable" (Ortegas, 156 A.D.3d at 580 [limitations period shortened to six months]; see also Executive Law § 297[5] [one year to file administrative complaints]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-109[e] [same]). Furthermore, to the extent the agreement requires arbitration of plaintiff's discrimination claims, it is not unconscionable as arbitration offered plaintiff an opportunity to pursue his claims (see Newton v LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2021]). We also reject plaintiff's contention that CPLR 7515, which bars mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims only prospectively (CPLR 7515[b][i]), and post-dates the arbitration agreement, requires invalidation of the arbitration provision on public policy grounds (see Newton, 192 A.D.3d at 54).

  10. Govender v. Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics LLC

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32278 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    In deciding an application to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the court is required to first make a determination whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement, and, if so, whether the issue sought to be submitted to arbitration falls within the scope of that agreement (see Koob v. IDS Fin. Services, Inc., 629 N.Y.2d 426, 430 [1st Dep't 1995]). Plaintiff's affirmation highlights that the arbitration clause is void under CPLR 7515 as it would require arbitration of plaintiff' statutory discrimination claims (see Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 192 A.D.3d 540 [1st Dep't 2021]), and that the arbitration costs prevent plaintiff from pursuing the claims (see Green Tree Financial Corp - Ala. V. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 [2000]). Defendants' reply points to Fuller, "the FAA … preempts any inconsistent state law.