BADME v. AECOM (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2025, which granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitration provision in the employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant is a broad provision requiring “all disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement” to be referred to arbitration under AAA rules.  Those rules in turn “authorize an arbitration tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement” (Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's, 66 A.D.3d 495, 496, 888 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1st Dept. 2009], affd 14 N.Y.3d 850, 901 N.Y.S.2d 133, 927 N.E.2d 553 [2010], cert denied 562 U.S. 962, 131 S.Ct. 463, 178 L.Ed.2d 288 [2010]).  Accordingly, the issue as to whether the expiration of the employment term affects the enforceability of the arbitration provision is one of arbitrability, which is for the arbitrators to determine (see id. at 496, 888 N.Y.S.2d 458;  see also Schindler v. Cellco Partnership, 200 A.D.3d 505, 506, 155 N.Y.S.3d 85 [1st Dept. 2021];  Remco Maintenance, LLC v. CC Mgt. & Consulting, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 477, 480, 925 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2011]).

While the motion court properly recognized the effect of the broad arbitration provision and granted the motion to compel on that basis, the court should not have addressed the merits (see L & R Exploration Venture v. Grynberg, 22 A.D.3d 221, 222, 804 N.Y.S.2d 286 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 749, 810 N.Y.S.2d 413, 843 N.E.2d 1153 [2005];  Fairfield Towers Condominium. Assn. v. Fishman, 1 A.D.3d 252, 769 N.Y.S.2d 214 [1st Dept. 2003];  see also ACEquip Ltd. v. American Engineering Corp., 315 F.3d 151, 155-156 [2d Cir.2003]).

The complaint asserts at least some claims that are plainly within the scope of the employment agreement and would be subject to arbitration if the arbitrators determine that the arbitration obligation was not entirely extinguished by the expiration of the employment term.  Accordingly, the court properly stayed this action in its entirety pending the determination by the arbitrators on the arbitrability issues (see County Glass & Metal Installers, Inc. v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, 65 A.D.3d 940, 940-941, 885 N.Y.S.2d 288 [1st Dept. 2009]).