Hirschfeld Productions, Inc. v. Mirvish
Cases that cite this one
39 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- AXA Equitable Life Insurance v. Infinity Financial Group, LLC (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2009)
- Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc. (1st Cir. 2014)
- Price v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- American Personality Photos, LLC v. Mason (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2008)
- Revis v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc. (United States District Court 2018)
- Degraw Construction Group, Inc. v. McGowan Builders, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C. (2d Cir. 2016)
- Rossi Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Gunderson (S.D. 2002)
- Sauer v. Xerox Corp. (District Court, W.D. New York 1998)
- Thiry v. Gehlen (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2025)
- Mozzachio v. Schanzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Watkins v. Musk (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2025)
- PEB, Inc. v. Premium Merchant Funding 26, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Matter of Village of Walden v. Teamsters Local Union No. 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- GNHC 1703-518, LLC v. Venari Partners, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- T&M Trusteeship & Mgt. Servs. SA v. BDO USA, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- T&M Trusteeship & Mgt. Servs. SA v. BDO USA, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Berger v. Signac Invs. Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Huntsman Intl. LLC v. Albemarle Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc. (District Court, D. South Dakota 2018)
- Matter of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP v. Cornell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Highland HC, LLC v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
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, nonsignatories, permitting them to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration.
Inasmuch as the dispute involves an international commercial contract, it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and Federal law (see, 9 USC § 201 et seq.; Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., 81 NY2d 623, 630-631, cert denied 510 US 993 *1056 [1993]). The Federal courts have consistently afforded agents the benefit of arbitration agreements entered into by their principals to the extent that the alleged misconduct relates to their behavior as officers or directors or in their capacities as agents of the corporation (Roby v Corporation of Lloyds, 996 F2d 1353, 1360 [2d Cir], cert denied 510 US 945 [1993]; Letizia v Prudential Bache Sec., 802 F2d 1185, 1188 [9th Cir 1986]; Arnold v Arnold Corp., 920 F2d 1269, 1281 [6th Cir 1990]; Pritzker v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 7 F3d 1110, 1121-1122 [3d Cir 1993]). The rule is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement (see, Roby, supra, at 1360; Letizia, supra, at 1188; Arnold, supra, at 1281; Pritzker, supra, at 1122; McCarthy v Azure, 22 F3d 351, 357 [1st Cir 1994]).
Plaintiff’s complaint is directed to misconduct related to HP’s failure to effectively produce and promote the play, not to defendants’ roles as owners of Enterprises. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the agreement between plaintiff and MP to arbitrate their disputes.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.