Thomas America Corp. v. Fitzgerald

4 Citing cases

  1. M & M Packaging, Inc. v. Mineo

    1:24-cv-05739-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2024)

    In fact, once Sprout filed for bankruptcy and a Chapter 7 Trustee was appointed, the Trustee and not the Debtor Sprout, nor its officers or directors controlled the Debtor's assets. See Thomas Am. Corp. v. Fitzgerald, 968 F.Supp. 154, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Once a [Chapter 7] trustee is appointed and qualifies, the debtor must turn over to the trustee property not claimed as exempt by the debtor.”);

  2. Aderman v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School District

    01-CV-0801E(F) (W.D.N.Y. May. 27, 2003)   Cited 2 times

    The analysis would be different if the July 25 Letter had concluded with language such as "please discuss with your client and give us an answer [or response] at your earliest convenience" or if it contained a deadline. See, e.g., Thomas America Corp. v. Fitzgerald, 968 F. Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding that letter made a binding offer where it concluded with statement that the offer is valid for 48 hours). An examination of the four Winston factors demonstrates that Aderman did not intend to be bound when she sent the July 25 Letter. First, as noted above, the July 25 Letter made an"express reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a writing" where it invited additional "communication" as opposed to an answer or a response.

  3. Thomas America Corp. v. Fitzgerald

    175 F.R.D. 462 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 3 times
    Ordering corporate plaintiff's former CEO to pay a fine pursuant to Rule 11 for filing a declaration that contained a factual misstatement

              The underlying facts of this protracted and muddled dispute are set forth in the court's numerous previous decisions in this matter and familiarity therewith is assumed. SeeThomas America v. Fitzgerald, 957 F.Supp. 523 (S.D.N.Y.1997)(denying request by defendant to enforce settlement agreement); Thomas America v. Fitzgerald, 968 F.Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y.1997)(reconsidering previous opinion and enforcing settlement agreement); Thomas America v. Fitzgerald, 869 F.Supp. 221 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on patent claims); Thomas America v. Fitzgerald, 1994 WL 440935 (S.D.N.Y.1994)(denying change of venue motion). The facts relevant to the issues raised in this opinion are the following:

  4. Pezhman v. Chanel, Inc.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 31178 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    For an informal contract to be binding and enforceable, (1) both parties must have the capacity to contract and objectively manifest an intent to be bound by the agreement, (2) the essential terms of the agreement must be sufficiently definite to be enforced, (3) there must be consideration, and (4) the subject matter of the agreement and its performance must be lawful. See Omega Engineering, Inc. v Omega, S.A., 432 F3d 437 [2d Cir 2005]; BAII Banking Corp. v UPG, Inc., 985 F2d 685 [2d Cir 1993]; Thomas America Corp. v Fitzgerald, 968 F Supp 154 [SDNY 1997]). Though the subject matter of the agreement and its performance are both lawful, it is unclear that the would-be offeror intended to be bound by what she wrote in the going away card, the terms are entirely indefinite, and there does not appear to have been any consideration.