green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
30.6 score
“federal courts have consistently afforded agents the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Matthew Herman v. Rock Gate Capital, LLC d/b/a 160 Driving Academy and Trucker’s Network, and Steve Gold, individually in his personal capacity
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
federal courts have consistently afforded agents the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Price v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
inasmuch as the dispute involves an international commercial contract, it is governed by the federal arbitration act and federal law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thiry v. Gehlen
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 748 F.3d 1 , 9–10 (1st Cir. 2014) (observing a “non-signatory to the contract may be bound by or acquire rights under an arbitration agreement under ordinary state- law principles of agency or contract” and then “appl[ying] New York State law [to] interpretation of the contract”) (internal quotation omitted); Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1360 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[E]mployees or disclosed agents of an entity that is a party to an arbitration agreement are protected by that agreement”); Hirschfeld Prods. v. Mirvis…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PEB, Inc. v. Premium Merchant Funding 26, LLC
“The rule is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement.” Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (N.Y. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Watkins v. Musk
Ill. 2023); Soltero v. Precise Distrib., Inc., 322 Cal. Rptr. 3d 133 , 142-43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024); Hirshfield Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (N.Y. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GNHC 1703-518, LLC v. Venari Partners, LLC
(See Matter of Rural Media Group, Inc. v Yraola, 137 AD3d 489,490 [1st Dept 2016]; TNS Holdings, 92 NY2d at 339 ; Jefferies & Co., 66 AD3d at 541.) Agency "[A]gents have been afforded 'the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation."' (332 E. 66th St., Inc. v Walker, 59 Misc 3d 1216[A] , 2018 NY Slip Op 50584[U] , *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2018], quoting Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996].) Here, plaintiff's claims agai…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T&M Trusteeship & Mgt. Servs. SA v. BDO USA, LLP
The litigation was correctly stayed as to the individual defendants, who, although nonsignatories to the arbitration agreements, were employees, partners, and agents of BDO during the relevant time period and, acting for BDO, performed services for plaintiffs ( see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]; DiBello v Salkowitz , 4 AD3d 230, 232 [1st Dept 2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T&M Trusteeship & Mgt. Servs. SA v. BDO USA, LLP
The litigation was correctly stayed as to the individual defendants, who, although nonsignatories to the arbitration agreements, were employees, partners, and agents of BDO during the relevant time period and, acting for BDO, performed services for plaintiffs ( see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]; DiBello v Salkowitz , 4 AD3d 230, 232 [1st Dept 2004]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater
The New York Court of Appeals previously applied this reasoning with respect to owners of a company in Hirschfeld Productions Inc. v. Mirvish, which held that a rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by their corporation is “necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principle in furtherance of the agreement.” 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huntsman Intl. LLC v. Albemarle Corp.
A rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by the corporate principal "is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement" ( Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc.
The court explained that allowing agents to enforce an arbitration agreement under such circumstances was necessary “to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements” and “to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties.” Id. (quoting Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (N.Y. 1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP v. Cornell
Mgrs. v Optibase, Ltd., 337 F3d 125, 130-131 [2d Cir 2003]; Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]), this is not a case in which a nonsigna-tory seeks to compel arbitration with a signatory.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Highland HC, LLC v. Scott
Moreover, contrary to Highland’s contention, the individual defendants, as officers and directors of PW Scott, are entitled to enforce the arbitration clause to the extent that their alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as agents of the professional corporation (see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Highland HC, LLC v. Scott
Moreover, contrary to Highland’s contention, the individual defendants, as officers and directors of PW Scott, are entitled to enforce the arbitration clause to the extent that their alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as agents of the professional corporation (see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
AXA Equitable Life Insurance v. Infinity Financial Group, LLC
(DE 60, pg. 3) (citing MS Dealer Corp., 177 F.3d at 947; Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 88 N.Y.2d 1054 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 , 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (1996); McBro Planning and Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Castellone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
Moreover, inasmuch as the issues to be decided in the arbitration against Chase and its predecessors are in many respects identical to those to be decided against the individual defendants (see Brown v V&R Adv., 112 AD2d 856, 861 [1985], affd for reasons stated below 67 NY2d 772 [1986]; cf. Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1055-1056 [1996]), the action insofar as asserted against the individual defendants should have been stayed as well pending the arbitration of the plaintiffs claims against Chase and its predecessors (see Marcus v Millwork Trading Co., 208 AD2d 448 [1994]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Personality Photos, LLC v. Mason
July 31, 2006) (quoting Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 88 N.Y.2d 1054 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 , 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (1996)) (“Federal courts have consistently afforded agents the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation.”) The purpose of such rule is “not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the princ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tong v. S.A.C. Capital Management, LLC
(See Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]; Roby v Corporation of Lloyd’s, 996 F2d 1353, 1360 [2d Cir 1993].) In conclusion, the arbitration provision is valid and covers plaintiffs alleged claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunmire v. Lee
Discussion An employee acting as an agent of his employer may invoke the benefits of the employer’s arbitration agreement to arbitrate claims with the agreement’s counter party even where the employee is not a signatory (Hirschfeld, Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996], citing Roby v Corporation of Lloyd's, 996 F2d 1353, 1360 [2d Cir 1993]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rossi Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Gunderson
Hirschfeld Productions v. Mirvish, 88 N.Y.2d 1054, 1056 , 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5, 6 (N.Y.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Revis v. Schwartz
"A non-party to an arbitration agreement may compel a party to arbitration if the relevant state contract law allows the non-party to enforce the arbitration agreement" (1 Domke on Commercial Arbitration § 13:1; see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 ; Huntsman Intl.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mozzachio v. Schanzer
Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 152 AD3d at 570 , quoting 1 Domke on Commercial Arbitration § 13:1; see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 ; Highland HC, LLC v Scott , 113 AD3d 590, 594 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Degraw Construction Group, Inc. v. McGowan Builders, Inc.
“A non-party to an arbitration agreement may compel a party to arbitration if the relevant state contract law allows the non-party to enforce the arbitration agreement” (1 Domke on Commercial Arbitration § 13:1 [2016]; see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1996]; Highland HC, LLC v Scott, 113 AD3d 590, 594 [2014]; see also Arthur Andersen LLP v Carlisle, 556 US at 630 ).
examined
Cited "see"
Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.
(6×)
See Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 88 N.Y.2d 1054 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 , 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Meadows v. Bette
That policy “dictate[s] that incidental tort claims which are integrally linked to an arbitrable dispute be submitted for resolution in arbitration” (id.; see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 218 AD2d 567, 568 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 1054 [1996]). “[I]t is for the courts to make the initial determination as to whether the dispute is arbitrable” (Matter of Nationwide Gen.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman v. Finger Lakes Instrumentation, LLC
Defendant also relies on a line of cases in New York which follow the rule “that employees or disclosed agents of an entity that is a party to an arbitration agreement are protected by that agreement.” (Roby v Corporation of Lloyd’s, 996 F2d 1353, 1360 [2d Cir 1993], cert denied 510 US 945 [1993]; see Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish, 88 NY2d 1054 [1996]; Matter of Trump [Carmel Fifth], 303 AD2d 287 [1st Dept 2003].) In these cases, it is held “that the parties fully intended to protect the individual [employees or agents of the entity] to the extent they are charged with misconduct within …
examined
Cited "see"
Sauer v. Xerox Corp.
(3×)
See Hirschfeld Productions, Inc. v. Mirvish, 218 A.D.2d 567 , 630 N.Y.S.2d 726 (1st Dep’t 1995)(rejecting plaintiffs attempt to avoid arbitration “by the artifice of appending incidental tort claims to a commercial dispute”), aff'd, 88 N.Y.2d 1054 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 , 673 N.E.2d 1232 (1996); see also European-American Banking Corp., 109 Misc.2d at 619 , 442 N.Y.S.2d 715 (parties “make appraisal agreements final because they want to avoid litigation”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Berger v. Signac Invs. Ltd.
Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 152 AD3d 567, 569-570 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Hirschfeld Prods. v Mirvish , 88 NY2d 1054, 1055-1056 [1996]; Revis v Schwartz , 192 AD3d 127, 143-144 [2d Dept 2020]).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C.
(3×)
See Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd’s. 996 F.2d 1353, 1360 (2d Cir. 1993); see also, e.g., Hirschfeld Prods., Inc. v. Mirvish, 88 N.Y.2d 1054 , 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 , 673 N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. v. Kvaerner
Servs., supra, at 35-36; see also, Hirschfeld Prods, v Mirvish, 218 AD2d 567, 568 , affd 88 NY2d 1054 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wapnick v. Seven Park Avenue Corp.
Each of these claims is fundamentally no more than a breach of contract claim, and, absent the allegation of a duty owed by defendant independent of the contract (the proprietary lease), a valid cause of action for negligence is not stated (Megaris Furs v Gimbel Bros., 172 AD2d 209 ; see also, Hirschfeld Prods, v Mirvish, 218 AD2d 567, 568 , affd 88 NY2d 1054 ; Winter v Beale, Lynch & Co., 198 AD2d 124, 125 , lv dismissed in part and denied in part 83 NY2d 944).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hirschfeld Productions, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Edwin Mirvish Et Al., Respondents
v.
Edwin Mirvish Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 22, 1996.
673 N.E.2d 1232
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Fischbein • Badillo • Wagner • Harding, New York City (Bruce H. Wiener, Jonathan Young and Andrew B. Bessite of counsel), for appellant., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Jay Cohen and Karen S. Kennedy of counsel), for respondents.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 39 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendants David and Edwin Mirvish are the president and chairman, respectively, of Mirvish Productions (MP), a Canadian theatrical production company. They also own the Old Vic Theater in London, England, through an entity called Ed Mirvish Enterprises Limited ("Enterprises”). In April 1993, plaintiff Hirschfeld Productions, Inc. (HPI) and MP entered into a joint venture agreement to produce the theatrical production "Hair” at the Old Vic Theater. The agreement was signed by David Mirvish on behalf of MP, and contained the following arbitration clause:
"Should a dispute arise from this agreement or from its interpretation then the Producers agree that such dispute shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed in the absence of agreement between the disputing parties by the President for the time being of the Society of West End Theatre in accordance with U.K. law.”
The play closed soon after opening due to poor box office returns and plaintiff HPI commenced this action against defendants Edwin and David Mirvish individually in their capacities as officers of MP and owners of Enterprises. The complaint asserted claims of tortious interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved for an order staying the action and compelling arbitration. Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division reversed. The question is whether the arbitration clause was meant to cover defendants, nonsignatories, permitting them to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration.
Inasmuch as the dispute involves an international commercial contract, it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and Federal law (see, 9 USC § 201 et seq.; Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., 81 NY2d 623, 630-631, cert denied 510 US 993[*1056] [1993]). The Federal courts have consistently afforded agents the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation (Roby v Corporation of Lloyds, 996 F2d 1353, 1360 [2d Cir], cert denied 510 US 945 [1993]; Letizia v Prudential Bache Sec., 802 F2d 1185, 1188 [9th Cir 1986]; Arnold v Arnold Corp., 920 F2d 1269, 1281 [6th Cir 1990]; Pritzker v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 7 F3d 1110, 1121-1122 [3d Cir 1993]). The rule is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement (see, Roby, supra, at 1360; Letizia, supra, at 1188; Arnold, supra, at 1281; Pritzker, supra, at 1122; McCarthy v Azure, 22 F3d 351, 357 [1st Cir 1994]).
Plaintiff’s complaint is directed to misconduct related to HP’s failure to effectively produce and promote the play, not to defendants’ roles as owners of Enterprises. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the agreement between plaintiff and MP to arbitrate their disputes.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.