In a Decision – K.S. v. J.S. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division affirmed that the restricted stock units were subject to equtable distribution
Plaintiff argues the 2015 RSUs were an enticement to remain at Novartis because he could lose the RSUs if he left, and the majority of the vesting occurred after the filing of the complaint. However, plaintiff only presented the number of RSUs awarded and their vesting dates and failed to provide any relevant evidence from his employer, the stock plan, or any related correspondence, as set forth in M.G. Additionally, plaintiff failed to offer clear evidence regarding the issue of whether the RSUs were an inducement to continue working at Novartis or a reward for services rendered. Therefore, plaintiff failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that the RSUs were not immune from equitable distribution.