Mary Petitt, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LMZ (2017)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Mary Petitt, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LMZ Soluble Coffee, Inc., Defendant–Respondent.

2610

Decided: January 03, 2017

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, JJ.

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York (Steven J. Hyman of counsel), for appellant. Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Kathleen M. McKenna of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 15, 2016, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The subject employment agreement contains an ambiguous provision regarding deferred compensation that can be read as indicating that plaintiff was to be employed for five years. Considered in conjunction with the five-year payment schedules and targets in the agreement, this ambiguous provision precludes a determination as a matter of law of the parties' intentions as to the term of plaintiff's employment (see Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48 [1953] ).

CLERK

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Out of date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