 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AGREEMENT MIRVISH DEFENDANTS PRODUCTIONS DISPUTE CIR PLAINTIFF SUPRA ARNOLD EDWIN MIRVISH MEMORANDUM APPELLATE DIVISION DAVID MIRVISH THEATRICAL PRODUCTION ENTERPRISES PARTIES OFFICERS LAW PLAY CAPACITIES OWNERS COMPLAINT CONTRACT COURT AGENTS PRINCIPALS MISCONDUCT DIRECTORS ROBY |
HIRSCHFELD PRODS., INC., APPLELLANT,v. EDWIN MIRVISH, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
88 N.Y.2d 1054, 673 N.E.2d 1232, 651 N.Y.S.2d 5 (1996).
October 22, 1996
1 No. 194 (1996 NY Int.205)
Decided October 22, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Bruce H. Wiener , for Appellant.
Jay Cohen,, for Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendants David and Edwin Mirvish are the president and chairman,
respectively, of Mirvish Productions (MP), a Canadian theatrical
production company. They also own the Old Vic Theater in London,
England, through an entity called Ed Mirvish Enterprises Limited
("Enterprises"). In April 1993, plaintiff Hirschfeld Productions Inc.
(HPI) and MP entered into a joint venture agreement to produce the
theatrical production "Hair" at the Old Vic Theater. The agreement was
signed by David Mirvish on behalf of MP, and contained the following
arbitration clause:
"Should a dispute arise from this agreement or from its
interpretation then the Producers agree that such dispute shall be
referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed in the absence of
agreement between the disputing parties by the President for the
time being of the Society of West End Theatre in accordance with
U.K. law."
The play closed soon after opening due to poor box office returns and
plaintiff HPI commenced this action against defendants Edwin and David
Mirvish individually in their capacities as officers of MP and owners
of Enterprises. The complaint asserted claims of tortious interference
with contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved for an
order staying the action and compelling arbitration. Supreme Court
denied the motion and the Appellate Division reversed. The question is
whether the arbitration clause was meant to cover defendants,
non-signatories, permitting them to compel plaintiff to submit to
arbitration.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
