Court Opinion

ID: 9958728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:06.705556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.600017
License: Public Domain

Ciano v LM Med. PLLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31098(U)
                      April 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157692/2023
               Judge: Dakota D. Ramseur
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157692/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:         HON. DAKOTA D. RAMSEUR                                 PART                            34M
                                                                         Justice
            ---------------------------·---                           ----------X   INDEX NO.         157692/2023
             VICTORIA CIANO,
                                                                                    MOTION DATE       08/16/2023
                                                     Plaintiff,
                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.       001
                                              - V-

             LM MEDICAL PLLC,DR. LESLEY RABACH, DR. MORGAN
                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             RABACH
                                                                                            MOTION
                                                     Defendant.
             ·------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12,
            13, 14, 15, 16, 46
            were read on this motion to/for                                     COMPEL ARBITRATION

                     Plaintiff, Victoria Ciano (plaintiff), commenced this action for discrimination and
            retaliation under the New York City and State Human Rights Law, breach of contract, fraud, and
            forgery, against defendants, LM Medical PLLC, Dr. Lesley Rabach, Dr. Morgan Rabach
            (collectively, defendants), stemming from defendants alleged refusal to pay plaintiff her bonus in
            accordance with her employment agreement and alleged discrimination and retaliation against
            plaintiff based on her pregnancy. Defendants now move pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay this
            action and to compel arbitration in this matter and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for sanctions.
            The motion is opposed. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part.

                    Plaintiff alleges that she worked as a physician's assistant employed by defendants.
            According to plaitniff, her employment, including her compensation, was controlled pursuant to
            an employment agreement with defendants. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the agreement,
            which commenced on July 13, 2020, plaintiff was paid a base of $150,000, and an escalating
            commission rate: 15% on gross revenues above $800,000, and 20% on gross revenues above
            $1,000,000. Plaitniff claims that in 2021, defendants paid plaintiff a salary and bonus totaling
            approximately $263,000. Plaintiff alleges that in August of 2022, the parties renegotiated the
            employment agreement to provide that plaintiff would receive a base salary of $200,000 and a
            commission-based bonus of $50,000 for gross revenues attributable to plaintiff that reached
            $1,000,000. According to plaitniff, the employment agreement further states that plaintiff was to
            be paid 22% for gross revenues in excess of $1,000,000 and 5% for skin care sales. Plaintiff
            alleges that paragraph three of the employment agreement states that Plaintiff's commission was
            to be based upon plaintiff's gross revenue, not net revenue. The employment agreement contains
            an arbitration provision, which states that "[a]ny dispute arising under this agreement shall be
            decided in final and binding arbitration" (NYSCEF doc. no. 15, ex A at iJ7).

                    In or around September 2022, plaintiff informed defendants that she was pregnant with

             157692/2023 CIANO, VICTORIA vs. LM MEDICAL PLLC ET AL                                    Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                             1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157692/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

           twins. Though not relevant to the instant motion, plaitniff alleges that defendants thereafter
           created a hostile treatment and obstructive conduct regarding basic pregnancy accommodations.
           Plaitniff alleges that on March 15, 2023, plaintiff's last day in the office prior to her maternity
           leave, she requested the status of the bonus payment, which she had calculated to be
           approximately $120,000. According to plaitniff, defendants were unable to pay her the amount
           she was entitled pursuant to the employment agreement due to cash flow issues. Plaitniff alleges
           that on April 3, 2023, defendants notified plaitniff that her bonus would be $61,351.67, much
           less than her calculation. According to plaintift she is owed the balance of her bonus, and
           approximately $119,000 in contractual wages earned, but not paid.

                   In support of defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims, defendants
           argue that the employment agreement contains a broad arbitration clause, and that plaintiff's
           claim fall squarely within the provision. Defendants further argue that they are entitled to
           sanctions, as plaitniff commenced this action despite acknowledging the existence and validity of
           the arbitration provision covering this dispute. In opposition, plaintiff argues that the arbitration
           provision in the employment agreement is void because defendants forged a material term of the
           employment agreement to read in defendants' favor. Specifically, plaitniff contends that
           defendants changed the word "gross" to read "net," thereby reducing the total compensation
           plaintiff was entitled to receive under the employment agreement. Plaintiff also argues that the
           arbitration agreement at issue is unconscionable, especially given her allegations of forgery.

                   CPLR 7503(a) states that parties have a right to compel arbitration "where there is no
           substantial question whether a valid agreement was made or complied with, and the claim sought
           to be arbitrated is not barred by limitation." Parties have the right to stay arbitration "on the
           ground that a valid Agreement was not made or has not been complied with .... " CPLR §
           7503(b). "[A] party will not be compelled to arbitrate ... absent evidence which affirmatively
           establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes. The agreement must be
           clear, explicit, and unequivocal" (Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group,
           Inc., 115 AD3d 128, 132-133 [1st Dept 2014] [internal citations omitted]).

                    Here, defendants establish their entitlement to arbitration of plaintiff's claims. The
            arbitration provision requires that disputes "arising under this agreement" shall be decided by
            final and binding arbitration. As plaintiff's claims herein are based upon the employment
            relationship between plaintiff and defendants, the arbitration provision encompass plaintiff's
            causes of action. Accordingly, the branch of defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted.

                    Plaintiff's argument in opposition-that the arbitration provision should be stricken
            because of the alleged forgery of the substantive terms within the employment agreement-is
            without merit. Courts generally determine the validity of an arbitration clause separately from the
            validity of the underlying agreement. "[C]ourts are required to treat an agreement containing an
            arbitration clause as if there were two separate agreements-the substantive agreement between
            the parties, and the agreement to arbitrate" (Matter of O'Neill v Krebs Communications Corp.,
            16 AD3d 144, 144 [1st Dept 2005], citing Weinrott v Carp, 32 NY2d 190 [1973]). Here, plaitniff
            argues that defendants changed a "fraudulently altered the employment contract negotiated
            between them, by changing the word "gross" to read "net"' within the "Compensation" section of
            the employment agreement, but does not establish that the arbitration agreement on its own is

             157692/2023 CIANO, VICTORIA vs. LM MEDICAL PLLC ET AL                                Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157692/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            invalid. The arbitration provision is clear and unequivocal, and thus, the substantive issues
            plaintiff raises concerning the agreement, including the alleged forgery, is for the arbitrators to
            resolve (see Krebs Communications Corp., 16 AD3d at 144 ). Plaintiffs reliance on Alam v
            Uddin (160 AD3d 915 [1st Dept 2018]) is misplaced, since unlike in Uddin, where the
            defendant's signature on the agreement, including the agreement to arbitrate, was forged,
            plaitniff here only alleges that certain terms within the employment agreement were modified
            after her signature.

                     Plaintiffs additional argument that the arbitration provision is unconscionable is also
            without merit. "A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the
            contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made-i.e., some
            showing of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with
            contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party" (Divito v Fiandach, 200
            AD3d 1564 [1st Dept 2021], quoting Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10 [1988];
            see Ortegas v G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc., 156 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2017) ["An unconscionable
            contract is one which is so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable because of an absence of
            meaningful choice on the part of one party, together with contract terms which are unreasonably
            favorable to the other"]). Here, the arbitration provision is not the product of disparate bargaining
            power or deceptive language in the employment agreement. Further, plaitniff fails to demonstrate
            that she lacked meaningful choice or was otherwise pressured into executing employment
            agreement. In fact, plaintiff states in her complaint that she negotiated and agreed to the terms of
            the employment agreement, which includes the arbitration provision (see Arrowhead Golf Club,
            LLC v Bryan Cave, LLP, 59 AD3d 347 [1st Dept 2009] ["The provision is clearly not the product
            of disparate bargaining power or deceptive language in the contract, and there is no evidence that
            plaintiff lacked meaningful choice or was otherwise pressured into executing the engagement
            letters containing the provision"]).

                     Defendants next contend that they are entitled to attorneys' fees for plaintiff's
            commencement of this action, despite having knowledge of the arbitration provision. "Conduct is
            frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) ifit is completely without merit in law and cannot be
            supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law or
            undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or
            maliciously injure another" (Falco v Miller, 170 AD3d 661 [2d Dept 2019] [internal quotation
            marks and citations omitted]). As evidenced by the discussion above, plaintiff's commencement
            of this action is neither frivolous, nor warrants sanctions. Accordingly, the branch of defendants'
            motion for reasonable attorneys' fees is denied.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby,

                   ORDERED that defendants' motion is granted to the extent that the branch of
            defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay this action is granted, and this matter is stayed
            pending arbitration; and it is further

                  ORDERED that plaintiff, Victoria Ciano, shall arbitrate her claims against defendants,
            LM Medical PLLC, Dr. Lesley Rabach, Dr. Morgan Rabach, in accordance with the arbitration
            agreement; and it is further

             157692/2023 CIANO, VICTORIA vs. LM MEDICAL PLLC ET AL                                 Page 3 of4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157692/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

                  ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a conference in Part 34 on July 9, 2024 at
           9:30 a.m. to address the status of the arbitration; and it is further

                  ORDERED that defendants shall serve a copy of this decision and order upon plaintiff,
           with notice of entry, within ten (10) days of entry.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                    4/2/2024
                     DATE
            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED          GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             157692/2023 CIANO, VICTORIA vs. LM MEDICAL PLLC ET AL                                   Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]