Jacoby & Meyers v. Crispi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacoby & Meyers v. Crispi

205 A.D.2d 312, 613 N.Y.S.2d 13

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 312 (Jacoby & Meyers v. Crispi) 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

Jacoby & Meyers v. Crispi, 205 A.D.2d 312, 613 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered April 6, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Because the 1992 stipulation between the parties does not refer to or affect any of the relevant provisions of the Employ[313]*313ment Agreement between the parties, the stipulation cannot be said to express "unequivocal language expressive of intent” by the defendant to reach an accord and satisfaction in his dispute with plaintiff (Galusha v Schur, 21 AD2d 32, 34, lv denied 14 NY2d 485). Otherwise stated, the stipulation was not a "clear expression” of intent to modify the Employment Agreement (Donnelly v Matheson, 112 AD2d 341, 342), or an expression of waiver that is "clear, unmistakable and without ambiguity” (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v Newman, 88 AD2d 685, 686, affd 61 NY2d 1001).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered April 6, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Because the 1992 stipulation between the parties does not refer to or affect any of the relevant provisions of the Employ[313]*313ment Agreement between the parties, the stipulation cannot be said to express "unequivocal language expressive of intent” by the defendant to reach an accord and satisfaction in his dispute with plaintiff (Galusha v Schur, 21 AD2d 32, 34, lv denied 14 NY2d 485). Otherwise stated, the stipulation was not a "clear expression” of intent to modify the Employment Agreement (Donnelly v Matheson, 112 AD2d 341, 342), or an expression of waiver that is "clear, unmistakable and without ambiguity” (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v Newman, 88 AD2d 685, 686, affd 61 NY2d 1001).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 312, 613 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacoby-meyers-v-crispi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack