PACHECO v. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SERVICES (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered April 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging nonpayment of wages under Labor Law § 191 (first cause of action), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the amended complaint dismissed.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for violation of Labor Law § 191, which pertains to the frequency of pay, not unpaid wages (see Vega v. CM and Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 107 N.Y.S.3d 286 [1st Dept. 2019];  see also Gutierrez v. Bactolac Pharm., Inc., 210 A.D.3d 746, 747, 177 N.Y.S.3d 704 [2d Dept. 2022]).  In the complaint, plaintiff does not allege that defendant required her or the putative class members to accept wages at periods other than those provided in Labor Law § 191, and she does not make any allegations at all regarding the frequency of pay (see Conte v. Tri–State Tech., Inc., 238 A.D.3d 704, 707–708, 235 N.Y.S.3d 310 [2d Dept. 2025];  cf.  Rosario v. Hallen Constr. Co. Inc., 214 A.D.3d 544, 183 N.Y.S.3d 849 [1st Dept. 2023]).  In addition, plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that she is a clerical worker entitled to the protections of section 191, rather than a professional worker excluded from those protections (see Shapiro v. John T. Mather Hosp. of Port Jefferson, N.Y., Inc., 208 A.D.3d 913, 915, 174 N.Y.S.3d 702 [2d Dept. 2022]).

Supreme Court has already dismissed the rest of plaintiff's claims, none of which are raised on appeal.  Thus, because plaintiff is not entitled to recovery under section 191 or any other portion of Labor Law article 6, her claim under section 198 must be dismissed as well, as that section of the Labor Law simply provides the remedies available to an employee who prevails under a substantive provision of article 6 (see Frances v. Klein, 231 A.D.3d 535, 536, 218 N.Y.S.3d 326 [1st Dept. 2024];  see also Riggi v. Charlie Rose Inc., 212 A.D.3d 486, 486, 179 N.Y.S.3d 901 [1st Dept. 2023]).