[Download] "Irwin Katz v. American Technical Industries" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Irwin Katz v. American Technical Industries
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 29, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Appeals by plaintiff (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated November 4, 1981, which, inter alia, granted defendants motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) to dismiss his complaint in his breach of contract action and (2) from an order of the same court (Daronco, J.), dated September 30, 1982, which, inter alia, granted defendants motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 5, 7) to dismiss plaintiffs complaint in his action for, inter alia, reformation and punitive damages. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Order modified, by granting defendants motion only insofar as it relates to plaintiffs claim for punitive damages and said motion is otherwise denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. By agreement dated November 23, 1977, the plaintiff Irwin Katz and defendant American Technical Industries, Inc. (hereinafter ATI) entered into a written contract which, inter alia, designated plaintiff as ATIs financial vice-president and treasurer. By agreement dated April 1, 1978, the parties modified the contract by increasing the plaintiffs compensation and extending its termination date from November 30, 1980 to December 1, 1982. Pursuant to a tender offer dated September 18, 1980, defendant Papercraft Corporation (hereinafter Papercraft) acquired control of ATI. Thereafter, in a letter dated March 26, 1981, Papercraft apprised plaintiff of its decision to move ATIs operations from Mount Vernon, New York, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and informed plaintiff that "We want you to continue in the Companys employ by joining us in Pittsburgh. You will be expected to perform the same duties as you are presently performing and you will be entitled to receive the same salary which you are presently receiving. The Companys present contractual commitments to you will be honored in all respects as a Company employee in Pittsburgh. In addition we will defray all reasonable moving expenses which may be incurred by you in moving to Pittsburgh, and based upon your years of employment and salary level, we will also pay you a $3000 relocation allowance upon your move." On April 8, 1981, plaintiff informed ATI and Papercraft in writing that he would not move to Pittsburgh, and on May 13, 1981, ATI informed plaintiff that his employment was terminated effective May 29, 1981. Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for breach of contract, in which he alleged that the defendants violated the employment agreement and representations made in connection with his employment by attempting to transfer him to Pittsburgh and by attempting to change his position. Essentially, the plaintiff claimed that when he agreed to become ATIs financial vice-president the companys representatives had assured him that he would not have to relocate in order to retain his position with ATI, and that the company wrongfully abolished his title. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action and plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment. Defendants claimed, and Special Term found, that the parol evidence rule precluded plaintiff from proving the claimed oral representations which would vary the terms of the parties written employment agreement. We agree. The parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of evidence outside a written agreement for the purpose of [96 A.D.2d 932 Page 933]