PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC, ET AL., plf-res, v. MICHAEL A. KRAMER def-ap, DUCERA PARTNERS LLC, def

3852-3853. PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC, ET AL., plf-res, v. MICHAEL A. KRAMER def-ap, DUCERA PARTNERS LLC, def — MICHAEL A. KRAMER Counterclaim plf-ap, v. PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC Counterclaim def-res — MICHAEL A. KRAMER Cross Claim plf-ap, v. JOSEPH R. PERELLA THIRD-PARTY CROSS CLAIM def-res — PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, PERELLA WEINBERG GROUP LP, plf-res, v. MICHAEL A. KRAMER def-ap, JOSHUA S. SCHERER def — MICHAEL A. KRAMER Counterclaim plf-ap, JOSHUA S. SCHERER COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS, v. PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LLC Counterclaim def, PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS GROUP, Counterclaim def-res — MICHAEL A. KRAMER Cross Claim plf-ap, JOSHUA S. SCHERER CROSS CLAIM PLAINTIFFS, v. JOSEPH R. PERELLA THIRD-PARTY CROSS CLAIM def-res — Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York (Lisa C. Solbakken of counsel), for ap — Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, NY (Jonathan D. Schiller of counsel), and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York (Jeffrey S. Klein of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley W. Kornreich, J.), entered July 19, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Michael A. Kramer and Derron S. Slonecker’s motion for summary judgment on the issue ofplaintiff Perella Weinberg Partners Group LP’s liability for unpaid deferred compensation, and granted plaintiffs and third-party cross claim defendants’ motion to dismiss defendants Kramer, Slonecker, Joshua S. Scherer and Adam W. Verost’s counterclaims and cross claims for fraudulent inducement, Labor Law, and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs’ and third-party cross claim defendants’ motions as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty asserted by Kramer against Joseph R. Perella, Peter A. Weinberg, and Perella Weinberg Partners LLC, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We find that, for the reasons that follow, defendants Kramer and Slonecker have failed to establish that the Deferred Compensation Amount Election Forms dated May 31, 2011 (Election Forms) unambiguously modified the terms of the Deferred Compensation Agreements dated May 30, 2007 (DCAs) to require payment of the deferred compensation accounts upon any separation from service, thereby entitling them to immediate payment of their deferred compensation accounts.