RAMIREZ v. ISSA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 195, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated October 10, 2024.  The order denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 195.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

From January 2009 to July 1, 2023, the plaintiff Cesar Ramirez allegedly was employed as an executive chef by the defendant Moneer Issa at a restaurant operated by the defendant Manhattan Fare Corp. In January 2022, the plaintiffs and Issa executed a stockholders agreement pursuant to which the plaintiffs purportedly held 50% of the shares of Manhattan Fare Corp. and Issa held the other 50% of the shares.  On July 1, 2023, Issa purportedly terminated Ramirez's employment and closed the restaurant based on allegations that Ramirez had engaged in conduct that was detrimental to the operation of the restaurant.

In July 2023, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 195.  In August 2024, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 195.  In an order dated October 10, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion.  The plaintiffs appeal.

“Article 6 of the Labor Law sets forth a comprehensive set of statutory provisions enacted to strengthen and clarify the rights of employees to the payment of wages” (Truelove v Northeast Capital & Advisory, 95 NY2d 220, 223).  Labor Law § 193(1) provides the general rule that “[n]o employer shall make any deduction from the wages of an employee,” unless such deduction is, among other things, made in accordance with other law or expressly authorized in writing by the employee and for the benefit of the employee (see id.;  Ryan v Kellogg Partners Inst. Servs., 19 NY3d 1, 16;  Costello v. Curan & Ahlers, LLP, 224 AD3d 732, 733–734).  Pursuant to a 2021 amendment, Labor Law § 193(5) provides that “[t]here is no exception to liability under this section for the unauthorized failure to pay wages, benefits or wage supplements.”

Here, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Labor Law § 193 by reducing Ramirez's salary while he was working for the restaurant and then by failing to pay his salary after July 1, 2023, when he was purportedly terminated from his employment as the executive chef.  For the period prior to July 1, 2023, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 193, since they failed to submit evidence, such as pay stubs or any salary agreement, demonstrating that the defendants unlawfully withheld wages from Ramirez during that time (cf.  Gertler v Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, 186 AD3d 801, 806).  For the period after July 1, 2023, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that Ramirez was entitled to salary payments during that period, since triable issues of fact remain regarding the closing of the restaurant and whether Ramirez would have been entitled to further salary payments under that circumstance (see CRC Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Kullman, 244 AD3d 684, 686).  Since the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the defendants' opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 195.

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is academic in light of our prior determination in Ramirez v. Issa (245 AD3d 844).

IANNACCI, J.P., TAYLOR, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.