Opinion
15205, 152312/14
05-26-2015
DS–CONCEPT TRADE INVEST LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. WEAR FIRST SPORTSWEAR, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
John H. Snyder, PLLC, New York (John H. Snyder of counsel), for appellant. Platzer, Swergold, Levine, Goldberg Katz & Jaslow, LLP, New York (Stan L. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
John H. Snyder, PLLC, New York (John H. Snyder of counsel), for appellant.
Platzer, Swergold, Levine, Goldberg Katz & Jaslow, LLP, New York (Stan L. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered November 21, 2014, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to stay or dismiss this action pending arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for a stay granted.
In this action to recover accounts receivable allegedly owed to plaintiff as a result of a factoring agreement it entered into with nonparty Deqing County Meili Garment Co., Ltd. (Meili), plaintiff, suing as Meili's assignee, has assumed the assignor's contractual obligation to arbitrate (see Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v. Deering Milliken, 35 A.D.2d 469, 471, 318 N.Y.S.2d 764 [1st Dept.1971], affd. 29 N.Y.2d 690, 325 N.Y.S.2d 419, 274 N.E.2d 751 [1971] ; see also Matter of Kaufman [Iselin & Co.], 272 App.Div. 578, 581–582, 74 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept.1947] [if factor took affirmative action to enforce contract, it would assume its assignor's obligation to arbitrate] ). We note that to the extent Rosenthal & Rosenthal v. John Kunstandt, Inc., 106 A.D.2d 277, 482 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept.1984), appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 1129 (1985), relied on by plaintiff, failed to heed this portion of Kaufman, we decline to follow it (see e.g. GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v. Spring Indus., 171 F.Supp.2d 209, 217 [S.D.N.Y.2001] ).
Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the broad arbitration clause in the contracts between Meili and defendant which provides that all disputes arising in connection with the contract shall be settled through arbitration, is applicable to the instant dispute (see e.g. State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 30 A.D.3d 26, 31, 813 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept.2006], affd. 8 N.Y.3d 574, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636 [2007] ; Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N.Y.2d 329, 333, 214 N.Y.S.2d 353, 174 N.E.2d 463 [1961] ). Further, there is “a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the underlying contract,” requiring arbitration of this matter (Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v.
Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 N.Y.2d 91, 96, 371 N.Y.S.2d 463, 332 N.E.2d 333 [1975] ; Remco Maintenance, LLC v. CC Mgt. & Consulting, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 477, 479–480, 925 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2011] ). A more detailed examination of this dispute is for the arbitrator (see id. ). We are staying this action instead of dismissing it so that the parties may make a motion in this action to confirm or vacate any eventual arbitral award instead of having to commence a new action.