Bennett v. Prodigy Communications Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Prodigy Communications Corp.

276 A.D.2d 416, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10724

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 416 (Bennett v. Prodigy Communications Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Prodigy Communications Corp., 276 A.D.2d 416, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 2, 1999, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, former officers of defendant corporation, allege that, pursuant to agreements between them and defendant, they are entitled to exercise certain stock options. The subject agreements to the extent here relevant, however, clearly and unambiguously require such options to be exercised within 90 days of termination or severance, periods which, as to both plaintiffs, have long since expired, or within 90 days following the end of a duly imposed “stock lock-up period.” Plaintiffs’ reliance upon this last provision to render exercise of their otherwise indisputably time-barred stock options timely is unavailing since it is plain that defendant never imposed a “stock lock-up” upon plaintiffs.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 2, 1999, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, former officers of defendant corporation, allege that, pursuant to agreements between them and defendant, they are entitled to exercise certain stock options. The subject agreements to the extent here relevant, however, clearly and unambiguously require such options to be exercised within 90 days of termination or severance, periods which, as to both plaintiffs, have long since expired, or within 90 days following the end of a duly imposed “stock lock-up period.” Plaintiffs’ reliance upon this last provision to render exercise of their otherwise indisputably time-barred stock options timely is unavailing since it is plain that defendant never imposed a “stock lock-up” upon plaintiffs.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 416, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-prodigy-communications-corp-nyappdiv-2000.