Goldfarb v. Solimine

245 A.3d 570 (2021)

Facts

P was employed as a research analyst. From 2009 to 2013, he earned between approximately $308,000 and $466,000 per year, exclusively from commissions. P met D in March 2013. Over the course of several conversations, the two discussed, among other things, anticipated market increases in a particular stock and P's interest in new employment. The conversations continued on the phone and in-person and included a later call and meeting with D's father, Emil, and another employee. P testified that, eventually, D offered him a job managing D's family's sizable investment portfolio. P testified that he was promised a base salary between $250,000 and $275,000, between fifteen and twenty percent 'of the profits and loss that [he] generated on [the] portfolio,' and between ten and fifteen percent of any of the family's profits directly attributable to his investment advice. The employment was to begin in July or August of 2013, and he would be formally employed by either D or his father, Emil, personally, or by one of two of the family's companies, DMS Global Ventures or Kore Insurance. D assured P on June 20, 2013, that he had a job. D failed to provide any writing memorializing their agreement. P quit his current job and began providing D with profitable stock tips and financial advice. Then, in August 2013, D told P that he would not employ him. P commenced this action in response. P asserted a claim for promissory estoppel, for  'payment for wages lost in reliance on promises of employment by D.' D filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that P's action was precluded by the Securities Law. The trial court denied the motion. At the close of the evidence, D moved for dismissal claiming that the action was governed, and barred, by the Securities Law and its writing requirement. The case was submitted to the jury on a theory of promissory estoppel. The court limited damages 'to the minimum salary he would have made' in D's employ, and concluded that any claim for commissions or profit-sharing was barred by the Securities Law. The jury determined liability in favor of P and awarded $237,000 in expectation damages after the trial court had barred the testimony of P's economic expert. D moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the Securities Law required the parties to put the terms of P's employment in writing. The court denied the motion. D appealed.