McClean v. Vera Wang Bridal House, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McClean v. Vera Wang Bridal House, Ltd.

40 A.D.3d 505, 836 N.Y.S.2d 406

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

DecidedMay 29, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 505 (McClean v. Vera Wang Bridal House, Ltd.) 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

McClean v. Vera Wang Bridal House, Ltd., 40 A.D.3d 505, 836 N.Y.S.2d 406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the second cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions granted and the second cause of action dismissed.

This action for breach of two employment agreements was commenced on behalf of plaintiffs decedent, who was a former employee, officer and 10% shareholder of both corporate defendants. The second cause of action alleged that upon the decedent’s death in March 2005, the corporate defendants breached the agreements, as amended, by failing to pay severance to the estate in the amount of $390,000.

The second cause should have been dismissed on the ground of a defense founded upon documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). Viewing the amendment in the context of the entire agreement (see Zodiac Enters. v American Broadcasting Cos., 81 AD2d 337, 339 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 738 [1982]), the only reasonable interpretation of the severance clause is that the decedent was entitled to a severance payment only in the event he was alive and defendants terminated him for any reason other than for cause. Accordingly, his estate was not entitled to the severance payment. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the second cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions granted and the second cause of action dismissed.

This action for breach of two employment agreements was commenced on behalf of plaintiffs decedent, who was a former employee, officer and 10% shareholder of both corporate defendants. The second cause of action alleged that upon the decedent’s death in March 2005, the corporate defendants breached the agreements, as amended, by failing to pay severance to the estate in the amount of $390,000.

The second cause should have been dismissed on the ground of a defense founded upon documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). Viewing the amendment in the context of the entire agreement (see Zodiac Enters. v American Broadcasting Cos., 81 AD2d 337, 339 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 738 [1982]), the only reasonable interpretation of the severance clause is that the decedent was entitled to a severance payment only in the event he was alive and defendants terminated him for any reason other than for cause. Accordingly, his estate was not entitled to the severance payment. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 505, 836 N.Y.S.2d 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclean-v-vera-wang-bridal-house-ltd-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack