From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bucci v. McDermott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1989
156 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 4, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for further proceedings.

In this action the plaintiff seeks, inter alia, specific performance and/or damages arising out of the defendants' alleged breach of an employment contract and a stock purchase agreement related thereto. More than a year after the litigation had commenced, the defendants amended their answer to assert the affirmative defense that the controversy should be decided by arbitration, based upon an arbitration clause contained in the employment contract. The plaintiff argues that the defendants waived their right to arbitration inasmuch as they affirmatively participated in the litigation for more than one year. We agree.

It is settled law that a party which elects to litigate waives its right to arbitration (see, De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 N.Y.2d 402; Reali v Danklefsen, 88 A.D.2d 929). We find that the defendants' conduct herein sufficiently manifested their intention to pursue litigation with respect to the claims regarding both the employment contract and the stock purchase agreement. This conduct effected a waiver of the arbitration clause set forth in the employment contract. Indeed, the defendants, inter alia, interposed an answer to the original complaint containing 11 affirmative defenses and counterclaims, served a notice to take oral depositions of the plaintiff, served a bill of particulars, opposed the plaintiff's motion to preclude discovery, and made a motion for partial summary judgment. These actions reflect an affirmative acceptance of the judicial forum constituting a waiver of the right to arbitration (see, De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, supra; Reali v Danklefsen, supra).

Furthermore, the waiver of the right to arbitration was permanent (see, Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 64 N.Y.2d 261, 274), and this right was not revived by the service of amended pleadings by the parties. Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bucci v. McDermott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1989
156 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Bucci v. McDermott

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS BUCCI, Appellant, v. WILLIAM McDERMOTT et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 4, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
548 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

Zepka v. Nexxar Group, Inc.

While Blatt may be otherwise relevant authority, Nexxar waived its right to arbitration by participating in…

Worbes Corp. v. Sebrow

Given these and other circumstances demonstrating that plaintiff waived the right to demand arbitration, we…