In Volpe v. Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., No. 652308/2012, Judge Eileen Bransten denied plaintiff Ray Volpe’s (“Volpe”) motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.’s (“IPG”) cross-motion to stay arbitration.  Citing New York common law, the Court held that Volpe waived his contractual right to arbitration by manifesting an “affirmative acceptance of the judicial process” when he opposed IPG’s separately filed motion to dismiss.
Continue Reading Additional Price of a Judicial Reaction: Waiver of One’s Contractual Right to Arbitration

In Volpe v. Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., No. 652308/2012, Judge Eileen Bransten granted defendant The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.’s (“IPG”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Ray Volpe’s (“Volpe”) complaint, finding that Volpe’s employment agreement with IPG barred him from recovering revenue generated from an agreement he allegedly facilitated between IPG and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). Volpe, who served as the CEO of two wholly-owned IPG subsidiaries, entered into his initial employment agreement with IPG on March 1, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”).
Continue Reading Unrealized Gains: Integrated Employment Agreement Bars Employee’s Recovery of Additional Compensation

In Suffolk P.E.T. Mgt., LLC v. Anand, 2013 NY Slip Op 02335 (First Dep’t April 4, 2013), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an Order by the Supreme Court, New York County Commercial Division (Bernard J. Fried, J.) to strike defendants’ answer for noncompliance with discovery orders and directives, enter default judgment against defendants on liability, and refer the matter to a special referee for damages.
Continue Reading First Department Upholds Commercial Division Decision Striking Parties’ Answer And Entering Default Judgment As A Sanction For Discovery Violations

In Schron v. Troutman Saunders LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 00952 (N.Y. Feb 24, 2013), the New York Court of Appeals held that the phrase “other good and valuable consideration” within a contract was not ambiguous, and therefore extrinsic evidence (evidence other than the contract itself) could not be introduced to explain the meaning of the phrase and demonstrate whether such consideration was actually provided. In so doing, the Court of Appeals illustrated that the common recital that consideration includes “other good and valuable consideration” does not free a court to look beyond the four corners of a contract, because there is a presumption that such consideration is supplied by the mutual promises contained within that contract.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Finds The Phrase “Other Good And Valuable Consideration” In A Contract To Be A Clear And Unambiguous Statement

In Daou v. Huffington, No. 651997/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 14, 2013)—a case strikingly similar to the Facebook lawsuit popularized in The Social Network—the Supreme Court (J. Ramos) ruled that political consultants Peter Daou and James Boyce (collectively “Plaintiffs”) could proceed on the majority of their claims asserting that Arianna Huffington (“Huffington”), Kenneth Lerer (“Lerer”), and TheHuffingtonPost.com (the “Huffington Post,” and collectively “Defendants”) stole Plaintiffs’ idea regarding the creation of the Huffington Post. The decision revives Plaintiffs’ suit, which seemed all but dead a year ago.
Continue Reading Claims by Alleged Developers of the Huffington Post Permitted to Proceed

By Sarah Aberg 

In IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., 2012 NY Slip Op 09190 (1st Dept. Dec. 27, 2012) the Appellate Division held that if you sign a binding agreement that includes an obligation to negotiate, the obligation to negotiate is not extinguished even if the parties sue for other breaches of that agreement.Continue Reading It Ain’t Over ‘Till the Fat Lady Sings – Party’s Contractual Obligations Continue In Agreement To Negotiate

Updating our blog post from November 7, 2012, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 81 on November 20, 2012. Executive Order 81 states that “[t]he suspension of provisions of law ordered by Executive Order Number 52 shall continue through December 25, 2012[.]” The following types of time limitations were suspended by Executive Order 52, and are therefore affected by Executive Order 81:Continue Reading Executive Order Suspending New York State Statutes of Limitations To Expire on December 25, 2012