Rothkerch v. International Furniture Rentals of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothkerch v. International Furniture Rentals of New York, Inc.

205 A.D.2d 471, 615 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7048

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 30, 1994·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about October 18, 1993, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss plaintiff-appellant’s fourth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff explicitly acknowledged in writing his understanding that the relevant determinations of deferred compensation [472] as made by defendants’ accountants would be deemed conclusive for purposes of the agreement between the parties, and explicitly waived any right to challenge any such determination or to question or participate in any management decision by defendants which might affect any such determination. There being no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement, plaintiffs challenge, as set forth in the fourth cause of action alleging breach of the parties’ deferred compensation agreement, to the depreciation method utilized by defendants’ accountants was properly dismissed as failing to state a viable claim (see, Quest Equities Corp. v Benson, 193 AD2d 508, 510). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about October 18, 1993, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss plaintiff-appellant’s fourth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff explicitly acknowledged in writing his understanding that the relevant determinations of deferred compensation [472] as made by defendants’ accountants would be deemed conclusive for purposes of the agreement between the parties, and explicitly waived any right to challenge any such determination or to question or participate in any management decision by defendants which might affect any such determination. There being no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement, plaintiffs challenge, as set forth in the fourth cause of action alleging breach of the parties’ deferred compensation agreement, to the depreciation method utilized by defendants’ accountants was properly dismissed as failing to state a viable claim (see, Quest Equities Corp. v Benson, 193 AD2d 508, 510). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Rothkerch v. International Furniture Rentals of New York, Inc., 205 A.D.2d 471, 615 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 471 (Rothkerch v. International Furniture Rentals of New York, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related