You are here: / / OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES,...
, ,

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined individual defendants, who were officers and/or employees of defendant corporation McGowan Builders, Inc, could enforce the agreement to arbitrate made between plaintiff and the corporation:

Here, the alleged misconduct attributed to the individual defendants in the complaint related to their behavior as employees and officers of McGowan Builders. Since “a corporation can only act through its officers and employees” … , any breach of the agreement would necessarily have to occur as a result of some action or inaction attributable to an officer or employee of McGowan Builders. As the Court of Appeals has recognized under similar circumstances, 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 principal in furtherance of the agreement” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the individual defendants were entitled to enforce the arbitration provision contained in the subcontract agreement between McGowan Builders and the plaintiff … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the moving defendants, including the individual defendants, which was to compel arbitration of the causes of action alleging conversion, unfair competition, and tortious interference insofar as asserted against them. Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05580, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

ARBITRATION (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)/CORPORATION LAW (ARBITRATION, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
Questions of Fact Whether Infant-Plaintiff’s Injury at the Hands of Other Students Was Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision and/or Negligent Hiring and/or Retention
THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION.
VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Criteria for Determining the Clarity or Ambiguity of the Terms of a Contract Explained
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY... UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY...