Lombroso v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lombroso v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

40 A.D.3d 289, 836 N.Y.S.2d 80

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

DecidedMay 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 289 (Lombroso v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.) 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

Lombroso v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 40 A.D.3d 289, 836 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered February 1, 2006, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claim in support of his promissory estoppel cause of action, that he reasonably relied upon the representation of defendant’s human resources officer as to when his qualified stock options would terminate, even though the applicable terms of the stock grants pursuant to which the options were issued included contrary provisions and the continued applicability of those contrary provisions was confirmed by defendant in writing subsequent to the human resource officer’s representation, [290]*290is not tenable (see Bailey v Gray, Seifert & Co., 300 AD2d 258 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan 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 (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered February 1, 2006, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claim in support of his promissory estoppel cause of action, that he reasonably relied upon the representation of defendant’s human resources officer as to when his qualified stock options would terminate, even though the applicable terms of the stock grants pursuant to which the options were issued included contrary provisions and the continued applicability of those contrary provisions was confirmed by defendant in writing subsequent to the human resource officer’s representation, [290]*290is not tenable (see Bailey v Gray, Seifert & Co., 300 AD2d 258 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 289, 836 N.Y.S.2d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lombroso-v-jpmorgan-chase-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack