Court dismisses appeal in Brice v. Two Sigma arbitration case

In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed an appeal in the case of Brice v. Two Sigma Investor Solutions, LP. The court's decision, made on October 6, 2026, centered around a motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. The case is significant as it touches on the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment contexts.

The plaintiff, Samuel Brice, initiated the case against Two Sigma Investor Solutions, LP. The dispute arose when Brice sought to challenge the company's decision to compel arbitration for his claims. The ruling affects Brice directly, as it determines whether he can pursue his case in court or must resolve it through arbitration instead.

Details of the dispute indicate that Brice filed his case in the Supreme Court of New York County. The lower court, presided over by Judge James E. d'Auguste, granted Two Sigma's motion to stay the action and compel arbitration on May 8, 2025. Brice did not oppose this motion, which is crucial to understanding the appellate court's decision.

The Appellate Division reviewed the case and concluded that Brice could not appeal the lower court's order. The court ruled that since he did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration, he was not aggrieved by the decision. This ruling is based on New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 5511, which states that only an aggrieved party may appeal a decision.

The court stated, "Plaintiff did not oppose defendant's motion to stay the action and to compel arbitration. He is not aggrieved by Supreme Court's granting of the motion and therefore may not appeal from it."

The judges involved in the ruling included Mendez, J.P., Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, and O'Neill Levy. Their unanimous decision highlights the importance of actively opposing motions in legal proceedings if a party wishes to maintain the right to appeal.

This ruling has implications for employees and employers alike. It reinforces the notion that failing to contest an arbitration agreement can limit a party's ability to challenge its enforceability in court. This case may serve as a precedent for future disputes involving arbitration clauses, particularly in employment contracts.

Going forward, this decision emphasizes the need for individuals to be vigilant in legal proceedings, especially when arbitration is involved. Employees should be aware that their silence or inaction regarding arbitration motions could lead to significant limitations on their legal rights.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Brice plans to pursue further legal action or if he will seek to challenge the arbitration process itself. The court filing did not name any attorneys representing Brice, while Laura Sack of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP represented Two Sigma.

As it stands, the case is now concluded at the appellate level, but Brice may still have options depending on the outcome of the arbitration process. It remains to be seen if he will pursue any further legal avenues or if there are related cases pending that could influence his situation.