Sarama v. John Mee, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1979 |
| Citation | 422 N.Y.S.2d 582,102 Misc.2d 132 |
| Parties | Stanley N. SARAMA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MEE, INC., a/k/a Sylvester Builders, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Ronnie D. Wax, Kew Gardens, for plaintiff.
Edward Ivan Penson, P. C., Great Neck, for defendant.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in his suit to recover a bonus allegedly promised to him by defendant, his former employer.
Plaintiff relies on a letter written to him by defendant on December 21, 1977. The letter reads:
"Dear Stan:
I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a Happy Holiday Season.
My appreciation to you for all efforts expended on behalf of the company is expressed at this time.
As you known, we have had a cash flow problem this past year and are just beginning to come out of it now. As is our customary procedure you will be receiving a Christmas bonus in the amount of $5,000.00. Also, you will be receiving an increase in salary to $500.00/week. Unfortunately, because of the cash flow problem, we cannot disperse the bonuses at this time but will be doing so in March or April of 1978, and ask that you kindly wait until that time to receive it.
Again, I thank you for your efforts and patience during this difficult time which has been an invaluable help to me and the company. I ask you to continue in the same vein and together all will prosper from the combined efforts.
Best Wishes,
JOHN MEE, INC.
/s/ Herb
Herbert A. Sylvester
President"
In order for plaintiff to recover for breach of contract, defendant's letter must contain an unequivocal promise to pay a sum certain, at a date certain, and, further, it must conform with General Obligations Law § 5-1105, by expressing in the letter the consideration for the promise.
The unequivocal promise to pay a sum certain is found in the words, " . . . you will be receiving a Christmas bonus in the amount of $5000.00." The date of payment is clearly defined in, " . . . we cannot disperse the bonuses at this time but will be doing so in March or April."
The payment of a Christmas bonus is by custom a reward by an employer to an employee for services rendered over the previous year. Plaintiff need not rely solely on the use of the term "Christmas bonus" as an expression of consideration for the promise. The consideration is clearly expressed when the letter is read in its entirety. The General Obligations Law does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Brunt v. Rauschenberg
...valid consideration where there is a written agreement signed by the promisor, N.Y.Gen.Oblig.Law § 5-1105; Sarama v. John Mee, Inc., 102 Misc.2d 132, 422 N.Y.S.2d 582 (1979), the existence of a written agreement is not pleaded. Accordingly, the claims based on past consideration must be dis......
-
Genger v. Genger
...decision Umscheid v. Simnacher, 106 A.D.2d 380, 482 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1984), which in turn cited as support Sarama v. John Mee, Inc., 102 Misc.2d 132, 422 N.Y.S.2d 582 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1979), and Citibank National Ass'n v. London, 526 F.Supp. 793 (S.D.Tex.1981), the latter of which cited only Sarama......
-
Gronlund v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
...Vital is the fact that the employer admitted that the employees had a contractual right to a bonus. Finally, Samara v. John Mee, Inc., 102 Misc.2d 132, 422 N.Y.S.2d 582 (1979) represents the situation where a letter advising the plaintiff that "he will be receiving a Christmas bonus ... for......
-
Citibank, Nat. Ass'n v. London
...contain an unequivocal promise to pay a sum certain, at a date certain, and must express consideration for the promise. Sarama v. John Mee, Inc., 102 Misc.2d 132, 422 N.Y. S.2d 582 (1979). The plaintiff has established those elements here. Under the terms of the stipulation, Howard London m......