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.
Erik OSBERG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Raj RAJARATNAM, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered March 28, 2011, which, in this action alleging a breach of an employment agreement, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record shows that pursuant to the express terms of the subject employment agreement, which plaintiff executed while represented by counsel, plaintiff was an at-will employee subject to termination “at any time, for any reason, with or without cause.” Moreover, the bonus that he seeks to recover was expressly and unambiguously conditioned upon his working through the end of the relevant calendar year. Because plaintiff's employment was terminated prior to the end of the year when defendant Galleon Group, LLC folded following an investigation for insider trading and the subsequent arrest of defendant Rajaratnam, plaintiff never became eligible to receive the bonus (see Hooper Assoc. v. AGS Computers, Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 493, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903 [1989]; Kolmar Ams., Inc. v. Bioversal Inc., 89 A.D.3d 493, 494, 932 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2011]; D'Amato v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Discover & Co., 268 A.D.2d 392, 701 N.Y.S.2d 431 [2000] ).
The record further demonstrates that plaintiff's claims for breach of an implied contract and for fraud are not viable. “[A] contract cannot be implied where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter” (Azimut–Benetti S.p.A. v. Magnum Mar. Corp., 55 A.D.3d 483, 484, 868 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2008] ), and plaintiff failed to provide factual support for the allegations that the statements made by Rajaratnam were fraudulent.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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.
Decided: May 17, 2012
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)