You are here: / / THE WARRANT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO MORE THAN 1100 SHARES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S...
,

THE WARRANT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO MORE THAN 1100 SHARES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S STOCK WAS APPENDED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT; THE TWO CONTRACTS DID NOT MERGE AND ANY ALLEGED BREACH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirming Supreme Court, determined that the Warrant was a separate contract entitling plaintiff to 1,148 shares of defendant corporation, SPI. SPI argued the Employment Contract and the Warrant merged forming a single contract and plaintiff’s breach of the Employment Contract precluded recovery on the Warrant. The First Department held that the fact that the Employment Contract was appended to the Warrant was not enough to demonstrate the two contracts merged:

SPI argues that appending the Employment Agreement to the Warrant demonstrates integration of the two agreements, or at a minimum raises a factual issue, relying on Starr Indem. & Lia. Co. v Brightstar Corp. (388 F Supp 3d 304 [SD NY 2019]). The argument is unavailing because it is based on a misreading of Starr Indemnity. That decision held that, to incorporate a document into another agreement, “[n]o particular mode of reference is necessary for that purpose; any language which indicates the intent that the two shall make one instrument, or a physical annexing of the one to the other, in a manner or under circumstances [*6]showing clearly such intent, is sufficient” … . SPI overlooks the element of intent in its argument, basing its position solely on the fact that the Employment Agreement is attached to the Warrant. The mere fact that the Employment Agreement is appended to the Warrant is insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate incorporation. Absent from the Warrant is any contractual language indicating a clear and unequivocal intent to incorporate and integrate the Employment Agreement. Instead, the Warrant simply states without qualification that plaintiff and SPI had entered into the annexed Employment Agreement, and fails to set forth any language providing for integration of the two agreements … . O’Connor v Society Pass Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05141, First Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The fact that one contract is appended to another, standing alone, is not enough to demonstrate the two contracts merged or were integrated.​

 

You might also like
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ISSUED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE SIX MONTHS ALLOWED BY CPLR 205 (a) TO REFILE A DISMISSED ACTION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG DATE TO CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PROPERLY RAISED AND CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON UNDENIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS OTHER GROUNDS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim
THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
COURT DID NOT CONDUCT SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S... THE NEARLY THREE-YEAR GAP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S KNEE SURGERY AND HIS SEEING...