Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raymond TEREBELO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ASP METRO, INC., also known as Charles Nenner Research Center, Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2024, which, following a bench trial, dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety and directed entry of judgment in favor of defendant, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate plaintiff's claim for pre-termination commissions and direct entry of judgment in his favor in the amount of $3,070.16, plus interest, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to post-termination commissions, which were not provided for in his employment contract. Although plaintiff testified that the parties entered into an oral agreement for post-termination commissions, the contract contains a merger clause requiring modifications to be in writing signed by the parties (see General Obligations Law § 15–301[1]). Furthermore, plaintiff's testimony concerning his partial performance of the alleged oral modification and his detrimental reliance on it was insufficient because his conduct was not “ ‘unequivocally referable’ to the new, oral agreement” but was consistent with defendant's agreement to pay him commissions before his termination (Richardson & Lucas, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club of City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 462, 463, 758 N.Y.S.2d 321 [1st Dept. 2003], quoting Rose v. Spa Realty Assocs., 42 N.Y.2d 338, 343, 397 N.Y.S.2d 922, 366 N.E.2d 1279 [1977]; see Rubin v. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 179 A.D.3d 495, 497, 118 N.Y.S.3d 4 [1st Dept. 2020]).
Although defendant prevailed on the claim submitted to the court for trial, the parties agreed at the outset of the trial that plaintiff was owed $3,070.16 on his claim to recover unpaid commissions earned before his termination in 2016. Accordingly, the post-trial order should not have dismissed the complaint in its entirety, but only plaintiff's claim for post-termination commissions, and plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid commissions in the stipulated amount, plus interest (see CPLR 5001[a], 5701[a]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3340
Decided: December 31, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)