NICKERSON v. VOLT DELTA RESOURCES, INC

We disagree with the IAS Court that the alleged agreement is too indefinite to be enforced, the "industry standards" upon which the modified commission amount was to be based being a sufficiently definite extrinsic standard (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry Warren Corp., 74 N.Y.2d 475, 483) and the other missing terms being determinable from the unmodified written bonus plan. We nevertheless affirm on the alternative ground urged by defendants before the IAS Court (see, Matter of American Dental Coop. v. Attorney-General of State of N.Y., 127 A.D.2d 274, 279, n 3) that the alleged oral modification to provide commissions at "industry standards" varies the terms of the written bonus plan, and is inadmissible parol evidence (see, Namad v. Salomon Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 751, 752; W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162) without which plaintiff cannot prove either the existence or terms of the alleged agreement.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.