Opinion
June 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).
Because the 1992 stipulation between the parties does not refer to or affect any of the relevant provisions of the Employment Agreement between the parties, the stipulation cannot be said to express "unequivocal language expressive of intent" by the defendant to reach an accord and satisfaction in his dispute with plaintiff (Galusha v. Schur, 21 A.D.2d 32, 34, lv denied 14 N.Y.2d 485). Otherwise stated, the stipulation was not a "clear expression" of intent to modify the Employment Agreement (Donnelly v. Matheson, 112 A.D.2d 341, 342), or an expression of waiver that is "clear, unmistakable and without ambiguity" (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v. Newman, 88 A.D.2d 685, 686, affd 61 N.Y.2d 1001).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.