Lopez v. Time, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. Time, Inc.

219 A.D.2d 569, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 569 (Lopez v. Time, 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

Lopez v. Time, Inc., 219 A.D.2d 569, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 27, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s rescission of its oral agreement to pay severance compensation to plaintiff was justified. The plaintiff purposefully exploited defendant’s good will and sympathy through false representations that she wanted to use the money to subsidize a period of rest and absence from career activities. She also concealed the fact, when offered the money, that she had already started working at a new, full-time, career-track job at another magazine, knowing that defendant would not have made the offer had it known of this other employment (cf., Post v Xerox Corp., 163 AD2d 908). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 27, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s rescission of its oral agreement to pay severance compensation to plaintiff was justified. The plaintiff purposefully exploited defendant’s good will and sympathy through false representations that she wanted to use the money to subsidize a period of rest and absence from career activities. She also concealed the fact, when offered the money, that she had already started working at a new, full-time, career-track job at another magazine, knowing that defendant would not have made the offer had it known of this other employment (cf., Post v Xerox Corp., 163 AD2d 908). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 569, 632 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-time-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack