Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2023 04:26 PM INDEX NO. 653801/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2023
EXHIBIT 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2023 04:26 PM INDEX NO. 653801/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2023
FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 08/09/2022 10:45 AM 2021-03250
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 Supreme Court of the State of New York RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2022
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Friedman, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
15859N CHAPMAN ROBERTS, Index No. 650698/21
Plaintiff-Appellant, Case No. 2021-03250
-against-
RODGERS & HAMMERSTEIN HOLDINGS LLC et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.
Leichtman Law PLLC, New York (David Leichtman of counsel), for appellant.
Ivan A. Saperstein P.C., New York (Ivan A. Saperstein of counsel), and Law Offices of
Robert S. Besser, Santa Monica, CA (Robert S. Besser of the bar of the State of
California, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Rodgers & Hammerstein Holdings
LLC, The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, Concord Theatricals Corp. and
Broadway Asia Company, L.L.C., respondents.
Rosenberg, Giger & Perala P.C., New York (Matthew H. Giger of counsel), for Mike
Stoller, The Estate of Jerome Leiber and Leiber Stoller Productions, Inc., respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or
about August 6, 2021, which granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and to
stay the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff created the original vocal arrangements for the 1994 Broadway show
Smokey Joe’s Café as an independent contractor pursuant to a 1994 agreement with
nonparty L&S Broadway Company (the Broadway Producers), as amended in 1996 (the
Vocal Arranger Agreement). That agreement entitles plaintiff to ongoing compensation
for certain productions of the show. As relevant here, the agreement contains a clause
requiring the arbitration of all disputes related to the agreement, and it further provides
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2023 04:26 PM INDEX NO. 653801/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2023
that the Broadway Producers may assign “all or any part of [their] rights” therein to
third parties.
In the operative complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants owe him
compensation for their exploitation of his vocal arrangements, based upon the
Broadway Producers having, in the mid-90s, transferred the payment obligations owed
to plaintiff under the Vocal Arranger Agreement to The Estate of Jerome Leiber a/k/a
The Jerome I. Leiber 1997 Family Trust, Mike Stoller, and Leiber Stoller Productions,
Inc. (the L&S Defendants). In addition, plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to
compensation pursuant to a 1999 agreement wherein the L&S Defendants authorized
Rodgers & Hammerstein Holdings LLC, The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, and
Concord Theatricals Corp. (the R&H Defendants) and others to license the musical and
its vocal arrangements to theatrical companies and venues around the world (the R&H
Agreement). The R&H Agreement includes a provision entitling plaintiff to payment for
certain performances on terms identical to those in the Vocal Arranger Agreement.
Relying on this payment provision, plaintiff alleges that the parties to the R&H
Agreement intended to permit his enforcement of the agreement against the R&H
Defendants. The R&H Agreement similarly contains a clause requiring arbitration of all
claims related to the agreement.
Since plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is based on the Vocal Arranger
Agreement’s payment provision, the claim is related to an asserted breach of the
agreement and is therefore subject to its arbitration clause (see God’s Battalion of
Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP, 6 NY3d 371, 374 [2006]).
Moreover, because plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract invokes benefits incorporated
into the R&H Agreement explicitly for plaintiff’s benefit, his claim is also subject to that
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2023 04:26 PM INDEX NO. 653801/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2023
agreement’s arbitration clause (see Matter of SSL Intl., PLC v Zook, 44 AD3d 429, 430
[1st Dept 2007]).
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: August 9, 2022
3