You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, Inc.

Citations: 210 A.D.2d 318; 619 N.Y.S.2d 782; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12602

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 11, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by the defendants against a judgment awarding the plaintiff $40,000 in a breach of employment contract dispute. The plaintiff was employed as Vice President of Operations under a two-year contract with a base salary and potential incentive bonuses. Following the acquisition of FBX Corp. by Pittway Corporation, the plaintiff's role was altered, resulting in the loss of eligibility for bonuses. The Supreme Court of Nassau County initially found in favor of the plaintiff, but upon appeal, the appellate court corrected the awarded damages to $16,000, acknowledging a miscalculation based on the plaintiff's own concession regarding the bonus eligibility for certain months. The appellate decision upheld the breach of contract finding on the grounds that the defendants' unilateral changes to the plaintiff's role violated the terms of the contract. The appellate court affirmed the adjusted judgment, concluding that the defendants' other arguments lacked merit, thus resolving the dispute with a reduced compensation for the plaintiff.

Legal Issues Addressed

Breach of Employment Contract

Application: The defendants unilaterally altered the plaintiff’s employment role, preventing him from earning agreed-upon bonuses.

Reasoning: The court found that the defendants breached the employment contract by unilaterally altering the plaintiff’s position, which prevented him from earning the incentive bonuses.

Calculation of Incentive Bonuses

Application: The court recognized an error in the calculation of the bonuses, as the plaintiff admitted he was not owed bonuses for three specific months.

Reasoning: However, the court miscalculated damages, as the plaintiff conceded he was not owed bonuses for three months.

Modification of Employment Contract Damages

Application: The appellate court adjusted the awarded damages due to a miscalculation of the incentive bonuses owed to the plaintiff.

Reasoning: The appellate court modified the judgment, reducing the damages to $16,000, and affirmed the modified judgment without costs or disbursements, remitting the matter for an amended judgment.