Daniel J. DiMuro, Partner of the New Jersey and New York offices, and Kasey T. Mahoney, associate of the New Jersey and New York offices, recently obtained a favorable result for their California-based business-to-business trade show operator after nearly two years of litigation before the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Department, and American Arbitration Association ("AAA").
Defendants are a leading operator of trade shows in the United States. The plaintiff, a well-known sixth-generation jeweler, owed an outstanding balance to defendants for the use of a booth at defendants’ trade show. This resulted in defendants banning plaintiff from subsequent events. Two years later, based upon other alleged incidents, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County asserting claims for tortious interference with his business relationships against the firm's clients and seeking nearly one million dollars in damages.
Given that there existed a contract for the usage of defendants’ event space, which contained an arbitration provision, although the plaintiff was not a signatory to the agreement, defendants moved to compel arbitration of the claims. This was erroneously denied by the trial court and resulted in a lengthy appeals process culminating in the Appellate Division First Department hearing oral argument, granting our clients’ appeal, awarding costs to our clients, and ordering plaintiff to arbitration.
The plaintiff then voluntarily brought his claims before the AAA. At the outset of the arbitration, on behalf of the firm's clients, the Gordon & Rees team sought the opportunity to seek a decision on multiple threshold issues. The arbitrator was amenable to this approach. These issues included whether the now voluntary arbitration action was subject to the arbitration provision contained within the parties’ agreement; whether plaintiff was responsible for all arbitration fees; whether the limitation of liability provision contained within the agreement was enforceable, limiting plaintiff’s damages to $10,000; whether the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims were actionable as pled in the Statement of Claim; and whether defendants were entitled to recover the outstanding balance of approximately $60,000 owed under the parties’ agreement in connection with their counterclaim. The arbitrator found for defendants on all counts and the parties were able to amicably resolve their dispute on favorable terms.