DUFFY v. RMSCO INC (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Brian DUFFY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RMSCO, INC., Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: November 17, 2006

PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., MARTOCHE, CENTRA, AND PINE, JJ.

Hancock & Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (Sonya G. Bonneau of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Patrick V. Melfi of Counsel), for Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law article 6 action seeking to recover a sales director bonus that allegedly constituted “a ‘wage’ as said term is defined in [Labor Law] § 190(1).” We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7] ). The terms of the bonus plan conclusively establish that the bonus was “dependent, at least in part, on the financial success of [defendant],” and the bonus therefore did not constitute a wage within the meaning of Labor Law § 190(1) (Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, 95 N.Y.2d 220, 224, 715 N.Y.S.2d 366, 738 N.E.2d 770; see Guiry v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 31 A.D.3d 70, 71, 814 N.Y.S.2d 617).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network