From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Budet v. Tiffany Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1989
155 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On September 7, 1984, the defendant Tiffany and Company (hereinafter Tiffany New York) informed the plaintiff that her position as divisional vice-president was to be eliminated. On September 21, 1984, Tiffany Co. (hereinafter Tiffany Delaware), which had entered into an agreement to buy 100% of the stock of Tiffany New York from Avon Products, Inc. (a defendant no longer involved in the instant action), held a meeting at which it offered certain managers of Tiffany New York the opportunity to purchase the stock of Tiffany Delaware. The plaintiff claimed that she was still a divisional vice-president at the time this stock was offered, that the defendants failed to disclose to the plaintiff the existence of this purchasing opportunity, and that the plaintiff was subsequently improperly induced into signing a release terminating her employment and waiving her rights.

The plaintiff's purported cause of action that the defendants violated "strong relationships of trust and confidence" in failing to offer her an opportunity to purchase stock must fail, since an employer owes an employee at will no fiduciary duty (see, Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 140 A.D.2d 493, 494, affd 73 N.Y.2d 183). Pursuant to the discretion of Tiffany Delaware, the stock was offered to those managers in "a position significantly to influence the performance of Tiffany New York following its acquisition", and the plaintiff, who was shortly to leave the company, was simply not in that category.

Furthermore, under these circumstances, it is not necessary to reach the issue of the validity of the release executed by the plaintiff upon the termination of her employment, because the plaintiff had no right to the stock which she was allegedly induced to release. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Budet v. Tiffany Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1989
155 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Budet v. Tiffany Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARITZA BUDET, Appellant, v. TIFFANY CO. et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 6, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 81

Citing Cases

SULLIVAN CROMWELL LLP v. CHARNEY

And if the client has no such private cause of action, then the propriety of extending such a right to S C,…

Stewart v. Jackson Nash

But the New York cases hold that an employer owes no fiduciary duty to an at-will employee. See Serow v.…