From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Madariaga v. Union Bancaire Privée

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 28, 2013
103 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-28

Elena G. DE MADARIAGA, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. UNION BANCAIRE PRIVÉE, et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.

Bickel & Brewer, New York (Alexander D. Widell of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Seward & Kissel LLP, New York (Anne C. Patin of counsel), for respondents-appellants.



Bickel & Brewer, New York (Alexander D. Widell of counsel), for appellant-respondent.Seward & Kissel LLP, New York (Anne C. Patin of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered June 26, 2012, which granted so much of defendants' motion as sought to dismiss the first and fourth through seventh causes of action and denied so much of the motion as sought to dismiss the second and third causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the second and third causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants' favor dismissing the complaint.

Defendants' policy that the payment of bonuses was entirely discretionary was clearly expressed in the offer letter to plaintiff, in the company handbook, and in a memorandum confirming plaintiff's 2010 bonus, and plaintiff acknowledged in writing that she understood the policy. Thus, none of her bonus-based claims—the causes of action for breach of an oral contract, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, violation of Labor Law § 193, and fraud—are viable ( see Kaplan v. Capital Co. of Am., 298 A.D.2d 110, 747 N.Y.S.2d 504 [1st Dept. 2002], lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 510, 760 N.Y.S.2d 101, 790 N.E.2d 275 [2003] ).

Plaintiff's severance-related breach of contract claims are premised upon defendants' alleged promise to pay her a severance package “consistent with the severance packages paid to” other “senior executives who were terminated by [defendants].” This alleged promise is “too indefinite to permit enforcement” ( see Glanzer v. Keilin & Bloom, 281 A.D.2d 371, 722 N.Y.S.2d 540 [1st Dept. 2001] ).


Summaries of

De Madariaga v. Union Bancaire Privée

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 28, 2013
103 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

De Madariaga v. Union Bancaire Privée

Case Details

Full title:Elena G. DE MADARIAGA, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. UNION BANCAIRE…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 28, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
103 A.D.3d 591
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1326

Citing Cases

Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v. Frischer

As defendant's acknowledgment makes clear, "[N]o supervisor, manager or other representative of [plaintiff]…

Zakrzewski v. Luxoft USA, Inc.

Even assuming that the offer letter and email should be read contemporaneously as one agreement, and even…