You are here: / / NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN...
,

NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant, Gordon, was entitled to compel arbitration with an entity which was not a party to the document with the arbitration provision. Plaintiff, BGC Notes, loaned $700,000 to Gordon as part of an employment arrangement with another related entity, BGC Financial. The employment agreement contained the arbitration clause and the note for the loan required resolution of any disputes in the courts. Although BGC Notes was not was not a party to the employment agreement, it was deemed to receive a direct benefit from the employment agreement. Therefore BGC Notes was subject to the arbitration clause in the agreement:

Although BGC Notes was not a signatory to the employment agreement, which is the document actually containing the arbitration provision, BGC Notes nonetheless received a “direct benefit” directly traceable to the employment agreement … . Specifically, section 3(d) of the employment agreement provides that BGC Financial would “cause” BGC Notes to make a loan to Gordon by way of the very note that BGC Notes sues upon in this action, and BGC Notes received all the benefits that an entity ordinarily receives upon the giving of a loan … . Thus, BGC Notes derived benefits from the employment agreement, and BGC Notes’ contention that section 3(d) conferred a benefit only to Gordon, and at most an “indirect” benefit to BGC Notes itself, belies the terms of the employment agreement … . BGC Notes, LLC v Gordon, 2016 NY Slip Op 05775, 1st Dept 8-11-16

ARBITRATION (NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION)/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION)

You might also like
Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOOTING WAS DNA ON A HANDGUN; THE EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE TREE WELL COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
UNSUPPORTED CEILING COLLAPSED DURING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.
WHERE A STATUTE, HERE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 40-B, PRESCRIBES A MONETARY REMEDY, AN INJUNCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEASE TERMS ALLOWED JURY TO BE INSTRUCTED ON TENANT’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY... CONTRACT PROVISION WHICH PURPORTED TO EXTEND THE ACCRUAL OF BREACH OF CONTRACT...