Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C., 94 A.D.3d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Hayes v. Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C., 94 A.D.3d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 680 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Badame v. AECOM, 2025 NY Slip Op 30792(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublished
    Plaintiff relies on Donnkenny Apparel v Lee, 291 AD2d 224, 224-25 (1st Dept 2002) and Hayes v Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C, 94 AD3d 680, 680 (1st Dept 2012) to argue continued employment past the expiration of an employment agreeme…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel F. Hayes
v.
Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 26, 2012.
Published opinion
94 A.D.3d 680
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 2, 2011, which, in this action alleging age discrimination, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The record shows that the parties entered into an employment agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause. The agreement also provided that it could not be extended except by a writing signed by both parties. At the time of plaintiffs termination, the employment agreement had expired by its own terms, and no written agreement signed by both parties had extended it. Although plaintiff continued to work for defendant law firm after the expiration of the agreement, evincing an agreement to extend some of the provisions of the contract, that was insufficient to extend the arbitration provision without a clearly expressed intention to do so. Accordingly, since no agreement to arbitrate existed at the time of plaintiffs termination, the court improperly stayed the proceedings and directed arbitration (see Matter of Waldron [Goddess], 61 NY2d 181, 185 [1984]; Donnkenny Apparel v Lee, 291 AD2d 224 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32186(U).]