 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WAGES LABOR LAW EMPLOYEE STATUTE PAYMENTS PLAINTIFF LABOR LAW ARTICLE COURT POOL LEGISLATURE DEFENDANT COMPENSATION BONUS PLAN CONTINGENT APPELLATE DIVISION QUARTERLY INSTALLMENTS PROTECTION FIRM BONUS/PROFIT SHARING PAID AFFIRM EARNINGS EXCLUDING RESIGNATION VIOLATED LABOR LAW PREDICATING MEMORANDA FIRM REVENUES DISCRETION |
3 No. 99
William B. Truelove Jr.,
Appellant,
v.
Northeast Capital & Advisory Inc.,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 104
October 17, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Phillip G. Steck, for appellant.
Mark T. Walsh, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
Plaintiff William B. Truelove, Jr. brought this action against his
former employer, defendant Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc., under
article 6 of the Labor Law to recover the unpaid balance of a bonus he
was awarded in December 1997, payable in quarterly installments
through the following year. His complaint alleges that his bonus
constituted "wages" within the meaning of Labor Law § 190(1) and
that, following his resignation after the first bonus payment,
defendant violated Labor Law § 193 by enforcing an express
condition in the bonus plan predicating payment of each quarterly
installment on continued employment. We agree with Supreme Court and
the Appellate Division that plaintiff's bonus does not fall within the
definition of wages protected by Labor Law article 6.
Defendant, a small investment banking firm, hired plaintiff in June
1996 as a financial analyst in a non-revenue generating position.
Plaintiff elected a compensation plan under which he was to receive an
annual salary of $40,000 and be eligible to participate in a
bonus/profit sharing pool. Plaintiff's offer of employment stated that
a "bonus, if paid, w(ould) reflect a combination of the individual's
performance and Northeast Capital's performance."
The terms of the bonus plan were further clarified in two memoranda by
defendant's Chief Executive Officer. The memoranda explained that a
bonus/profit sharing pool would be established only if the firm
generated a certain stated minimum of revenues and that the pool, once
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
