KRAVITZ v. CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL LLC (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered June 13, 2023, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The documentary evidence conclusively demonstrates that plaintiff's employment contract with defendants contained a forum selection clause mandating that her action seeking unpaid commissions be brought in Connecticut (see Arya's Collection, Inc. v. Brink's Global Servs., USA, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 525, 888 N.Y.S.2d 57 [1st Dept. 2009]).  Plaintiff does not argue that the clause is unreasonable, unjust, or invalid because of fraud or overreaching (British W. Indies Guar. Trust Co. v. Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, 172 A.D.2d 234, 234, 567 N.Y.S.2d 731 [1st Dept. 1991];  see also Amazing Home Care Servs., LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co., Inc., 191 A.D.3d 516, 518, 142 N.Y.S.3d 507 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Plaintiff's contention that the forum selection clause is contained in a separate contract and is, therefore, inapplicable to her claim for unpaid commissions is unavailing.  All parts of the employment contract were signed by the parties at the same time and involve the same subject matter – the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment with defendants (see Bloom v. Papadakis & Gonzalez, D.D.S., PLLC, 211 A.D.3d 455, 455, 180 N.Y.S.3d 21 [1st Dept. 2022];  1471 Second Corp. v. NAT of N.Y. Corp., 162 A.D.3d 449, 450, 79 N.Y.S.3d 23 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Thus, the forum selection clause is applicable to plaintiff's action seeking unpaid commissions pursuant to the New York Labor Law (see Boss v. American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. 6 N.Y.3d 242, 811 N.Y.S.2d 620, 844 N.E.2d 1142 [2006]).