Canter v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canter v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

30 A.D.2d 937, 293 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3249

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 937 (Canter v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.) 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

Canter v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 937, 293 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered May 10, 1967 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s claim that “repre[938]*938sentations and assurances ” were made to her by an employee of the defendant that its retirement plan would be modified in her ease so as to unconditionally vest in plaintiff defendant’s contributions to the plan, fails to raise a genuine triable issue. The terms of the retirement plan were unambiguous and were understood by the plaintiff, including the condition that only the defendant’s board of directors could modify the provisions of the plan. Plaintiff was not deceived nor did she rely upon the defendant’s “assurances,” which at the most amounted to but a hope on its part that the rights and benefits of all of its employees under the retirement plan would be expanded at some indefinite time in the future. Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered May 10, 1967 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s claim that “repre[938]*938sentations and assurances ” were made to her by an employee of the defendant that its retirement plan would be modified in her ease so as to unconditionally vest in plaintiff defendant’s contributions to the plan, fails to raise a genuine triable issue. The terms of the retirement plan were unambiguous and were understood by the plaintiff, including the condition that only the defendant’s board of directors could modify the provisions of the plan. Plaintiff was not deceived nor did she rely upon the defendant’s “assurances,” which at the most amounted to but a hope on its part that the rights and benefits of all of its employees under the retirement plan would be expanded at some indefinite time in the future. Concur— Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 937, 293 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canter-v-federated-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1968.