| Fordham v New York Amsterdam News |
| 2004 NY Slip Op 50826(U) |
| Decided on July 14, 2004 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated December 2, 2002 (Eileen A. Rakower, J.) denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.
PER CURIAM:
Order dated December 2, 2002 (Eileen A. Rakower,
J.) reversed, with $10 costs, defendant's motion for summary
judgment granted and the complaint dismissed in its entirety.
In this action for severance pay, defendant's controlling memorandum to plaintiff dated December 10, 1997 clearly conditioned eligibility for this benefit upon two essential criteria, namely, "[v]oluntary retirement after 25 years service or upon reaching age 60 years." It is undisputed that plaintiff satisfied neither of these eligibility requirements, having been terminated at age 42 after eight years of employment (see Payne v Enable Software, 229 AD2d 880 [1996]; Traviglia v Fleet Bank, 219 AD2d 644 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 805 [1995]).
Since plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning her entitlement to severance [*2]benefits (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.