Practice point: The Appellate Division found that defendants' policy that the payment of bonuses was entirely
discretionary was clearly expressed in the offer letter to plaintiff, in
the company handbook, and in a memorandum confirming plaintiff's 2010
bonus, and plaintiff acknowledged in writing that she understood the
policy. As a result, none of plaintiff's bonus-based claims — the causes of action for
breach of an oral contract, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, promissory
estoppel, violation of Labor Law § 193, and fraud — were viable.
Student note: Plaintiff's severance-related breach of contract claims were
premised upon defendants' alleged promise to pay plaintiff a severance package
"consistent with the severance packages paid to" other "senior
executives who were terminated." The Appellate Division found that this alleged promise is too indefinite to be given effect.
Case: DeMadariaga v. Union Bancaire Privee, NY Slip Op 01326 (1st Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Default judgments.
