LOMBROSO v. JPMORGAN CHASE CO (2007)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Eytan LOMBROSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: May 08, 2007

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, SULLIVAN, BUCKLEY, JJ.

Hass & Gottlieb, Scarsdale (Lawrence M. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellant. Stephanie E. Sowell, New York, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered February 1, 2006, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's claim in support of his promissory estoppel cause of action, that he reasonably relied upon the representation of defendant's human resources officer as to when his qualified stock options would terminate, even though the applicable terms of the stock grants pursuant to which the options were issued included contrary provisions and the continued applicability of those contrary provisions was confirmed by defendant in writing subsequent to the human resource officer's representation, is not tenable (see Bailey v. Gray, Siefert & Co., Inc., 300 A.D.2d 258, 752 N.Y.S.2d 646 [2002] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network