Court Opinion

ID: 9916562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:10:28.685936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:34.736910
License: Public Domain

Curtis v Mariano
               2020 NY Slip Op 35564(U)
                    August 19, 2020
             Supreme Court, Bronx County
        Docket Number: Index No. 31751/2019E
            Judge: Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr.
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.
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 09/02/2020 03:44 PM                                                                    INDEX NO. 31751/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2020
                                                                                                V,          s ( (X-e- . /

                                           HE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                                                                                        ol~ t uf~ tt-~c/(7J
                        E
                                           20                   X

                                                                                        Index No: 31751/2019E
                                                   Plaintiff,
                                                                                        DECISION AND ORDER
                    -against-
             ROBERT MARIANO, CHRISTINA SMALLS;                                          Present:
             ALFREDO FLORES PEREZ; SCOTT DOE; ARTHUR                                    HON. KENNETH L. THOMPSON , JR.
             DOE; RESTAURAN T DEPOT LLC; JETRO
             HOLDINGS , LLC; JETRO CASH AND CARRY
             ENTERPRISES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10 (the
             names "Doe" and "John Doe ' being fictitious as the true
             names are presently unknown) ,

                                                 Defen dants
                                                                              X
                     - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -
            The following papers numbered I to 3 read on this motion to dismiss

            No     On Calendar of June 30, 2020                                                               PAPERS NUMB ER
            Notice of Moti on-Order to Show Cause - Exhi bits and Affidavits Annexed------ --------- - 1- -
            Answering Affidavit and Exhi bits-------------- ----------------------------------- -------_ _ 2_ _
            Replyi ng Affida vi t and Exhibits----------------------------------------------- ------------------_ _ 3_ _

            Upon the foregoing papers and due deliberation thereof, the Decision/Order on this motion is as follows :

                     Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and (a)(5) to dismiss the

            complaint or in the alternative, compelling arbitration and staying the proceeding

            pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), and the Federal Arbitration Act, (FAA). Plaintiff was a

            Supervising Manager for defendant Jetro Holdings, LLC, who was hired on

            October 16, 2018 and was terminated on November 6, 2018. Plaintiff commenced

            this action on October 7, 2019 alleging employment discrimination on the basis of

            his color, race, alienage, national origin and citizenship status, as well as retaliation

            under the New York State Human Rights Law, (NYSHRL) and the New York City

            Administrative Code, (NYCHRL ).

                     However, plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement on the date of his hiring,
            October 16, 2018, in which the parties agreed that the exclusive method for

                                                                   1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 09/02/2020 03:44 PM                                                            INDEX NO. 31751/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2020

           resolving disputes in general and specifically claims of discrimination, harassment
           or retaliation, would be arbitration . Under the terms of the arbitration agreement
           plaintiff had a one year filing period to submit any claim to arbitration and waived
           any statute of limitations applicable to this claim to the extent that is greater than
           one year. 1 Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is null and void pursuant
           to CPLR 7515 and argues that the agreement is both substantively and
           procedurally unconscionable.
                                                             CPLR 7515

                      CPLR 7515(4)(i) provides that "except where inconsistent with federal law,
            no written contract, entered into on or after the effective date of this section shall
            contain a prohibited clause." A prohibited clause "shall mean any clause or
            provision in any contract which requires as a condition of the enforcement of the
            contract or obtaining remedies under the contract that the parties submit to
            mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of discrimination, in
            violation of laws prohibiting discrimination, including but not limited to, article 15
            of the executive law." CPLR(a)(3).
                      CPLR 7515 is inapplicable to this action on two separate grounds. The
            effective date of CPLR 7515 was October 11 , 2019. The subject arbitration
            agreement was entered into on October 16, 2018 nearly a year prior to the effective
            date. Therefore , CPLR 7515 is inapplicable to this action.
                      Secondly, on separate grounds, " ' [t]he Federal Arbitration Act requires

            courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to their terms. ' Lamps

            Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1412 (2019)." (Latif v. Morgan Stanley &

            1   Arbitration Agreement dated October 16 20 I8, Scope of Arbitration Obligation (c).
                                                                      2

                                                                 2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 09/02/2020 03:44 PM                                        INDEX NO. 31751/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2020

           Co. LLC, No.18CV 11528 (DLC), 2019 WL 2610985 [S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019]).

           Section 2 of the FAA provides that "a written provision in ... a contract evidencing

           a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter

           arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and

           enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation

           of any contract." ( emphasis added). Since CPLR 7515 provides a defense to

           mandatory arbitration agreements in discrimination actions only, and therefore

            does not apply to "any contract," CPLR 7515 is inapplicable to the subject

            arbitration agreement. "When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a

            particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is

            displaced by the FAA. Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346,353, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169

            L.Ed.2d 917 (2008)." (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333,341

            [2011]).

                       PROCED URAL AND SUBSTA NTIVE UNCONS CIONAB ILITY

                   Plaintiff argues that this action is substantively unconscionable as the

            arbitration agreement reduces the statute of limitations from three years to a one

            year filing period in this discrimination action. However, the "patties to a contract

            may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced

            to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations"

            (Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. v Carrier Corp., 5 AD3d 442,443 [2004]; see CPLR

            201; John J Kassner & Co. v City ofNew York, 46 NY2d 544, 550-551 [1979]) .

            . . .The plaintiffs contentions that the shortened limitations period set forth in the

                                                        3

                                                    3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 09/02/2020 03:44 PM                                          INDEX NO. 31751/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2020

           employmen t application was not applicable or was unenforceable are without

           merit." (Hunt v. Raymour & Flanigan, 105 A.D.3d 1005, 1006 [2 nd Dept 2013]).

            In Hunt, the statute of limitations of the Human Rights Law claims were shortened

           to six months from three years, substantially shorter than the statute of limitations

            stated in the arbitration agreement herein.

                    With respect to procedural unconscionability plaintiff avers that on the start

            date of his job he was "pressured to sign the documents as soon as possible,

            without any explanation as to the nature of the document I was asked to sign." 2 I

            was told to either take or leave the job. In Ragone v. Atl. Video at Manhattan Ctr.,

            595 F .3d 115, 122 [2d Cir. 201 OJ), plaintiff similarly "was offered the arbitration

            agreement "on a 'take it or leave it' basis.' " Id. at 122. The Ragone Court held

            that " it is plain that "this is not sufficient under New York law to render the

            [arbitration] provision procedurally unconscionable." Id. at 122.

                     The following facts for a similarly situated plaintiff are instructive:

                     Acevedo claims that she was not given an opportunity to review the
                     Agreement on her own or with counsel and she was unaware that she
                     had signed away any rights. Acevedo also claims that she was not
                     provided an explanation of the purpose of the document and was not
                     told that she could decline signing it if she still wished to work for
                     defendants. Such claims are insufficient to show that she signed the
                     Agreement under deceptive or high-pressured tactics, or that the
                     Agreement contains fine print, or that Acevedo lacked experience and
                     education, or that there was a disparity in bargaining power (see
                     Gillman, 73 N.Y.2d at 11 , 537 N.Y.S.2d 787, 534 N.E .2d 824; see
                     also, Dabriel, Inc. v. First Paradise Theaters Corp., 99 A.D.3d 517,
                     952 N.Y.S.2d 506 [1st Dept 2012] ("[p]laintiffs were free to walk

            2 Plaintiffs affidavi t dated, February 20 , 2020, par. 7.

                                                                         4

                                                                    4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 09/02/2020 03:44 PM                                      INDEX NO. 31751/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2020

                  away from the lease negotiations at any time and rent space
                  elsewhere")).

                  (Acevedo v. Silk Corp. , No. 153421/2016, 2017 WL 1345589 [(N.Y.
                  Sup. Ct. Apr. 12, 2017]).

                  Therefore, the arbitration agreement executed on October 16, 2018, is in full

           force and effect, and plaintiff has exceeded the one-year filing period provided in

           the arbitration agreement.

                  Accordingly , defendants' ' motion is granted and the complaint is hereby

            dismissed.

                  The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                  The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the judgment accordingly .

            Dated:   0 /q 2o    2... .:>
                                                                                   .s.c.

                                                     5

                                                  5 of 5
[* 5]