General

Mary Petitt, Appellant, v. LMZ Soluble Coffee, Inc., Respondent

146 A.D.3d 41443 N.Y.S.3d 742·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2017·NY

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Mary Petitt, Appellant, v LMZ Soluble Coffee, Inc., Respondent. [43 NYS3d 742] [MAJORITY] 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 NY 48 [1953]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.