Meier v. Stonebrook Structured Products, LLC

18 A.D.3d 228, 795 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered May 7, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[229]*229Plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that he had an 18% ownership interest in the company that hired him, which was defendant’s predecessor. Contrary to his claim, the terms of the offer letter, including the buyout provision, were specific and certain. Once plaintiff accepted the offer, there was an enforceable agreement. The buyout provision was not contingent on anything other than termination of employment and payment of par value, which occurred here (see e.g. F & S Pharm. v Dandra Realty Corp., 302 AD2d 204 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Meier v. Stonebrook Structured Products, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 228, 795 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

18 A.D.3d 228 (Meier v. Stonebrook Structured Products, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Day One Express Corp. v. Gracepat Corp.
55 A.D.3d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)