Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Smart Trike, MNF, PTE, Ltd., Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. Piermont Products, LLC, formerly known as Smart Trike, LLC, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent, Robert Kramer, et al., Defendants.
_
Appeals from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered December 12, 2014, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 16, 2015, as supplemented by order entered on or about January 29, 2016, deemed appeals from judgment, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2016, in plaintiff's favor (CPLR 5501[c] ), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court correctly granted plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims except insofar as the plain language of the parties' agreement required plaintiff to provide six months' notice of the termination of the agreement, during which period defendant was entitled to its earned commissions (W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162 [1990] ).
Because defendant held more of plaintiff's money than the amount of its own claimed commissions, the motion court correctly found the New Jersey Sales Representatives' Rights Act, pertaining to “unpaid” commissions (see NJ Stat Ann 2A:61A–2), inapplicable. The court also correctly concluded that New York Labor Law § 191–c did not apply to defendant, which admitted that it only solicited orders from its headquarters in New Jersey
(see § 191–a[d] ).
The plain language of the contract defeats the counterclaim for lost profits.
We perceive no error in the starting date set by the court for computing prejudgment interest (see CPLR 5001).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 3061– 3062– 3062A
Decided: February 10, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)