You are here: / / LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH...
, ,

LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff, an associate in defendant law firm, was entitled to 5% of the $5 million fee collected by the law firm in an action on behalf of a client brought in by the associate. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under the Labor Law 190 cause of action, as well as under the breach of contract cause of action. The Fourth Department determined the verdict on the Labor Law 190 cause of action should have been set aside because, under the law described in the jury instructions, the jury should have found the payment to be “incentive compensation” which is excluded from the type of pay covered by the Labor Law:

​

Applying the facts to the law as stated in the jury charge, the evidence establishes that the collections bonus was “incentive compensation” because it was based on more than just plaintiff’s performance. Among other things, the matter took considerable effort from other attorneys, some of whom billed far more hours on the matter than plaintiff, and a partner conducted international arbitration and filed enforcement proceedings to secure a settlement collectible by the client. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, inasmuch as the collections bonus was calculated as a percentage of the fee in the matter and “the fee collected” by defendant was based on the abovementioned factors outside of plaintiff’s control, the jury could not have rationally concluded that the collections bonus was anything other than “incentive compensation” excluded from protection under Labor Law § 193 (1). …

​

… [T]he evidence adduced by plaintiff established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in which at least one of defendant’s partners promised to pay plaintiff a bonus consisting of 5% of the fee collections from any client generated by plaintiff if such fees exceeded $100,000, that plaintiff subsequently performed under the agreement by generating the client, and that defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the collections bonus, thereby causing plaintiff to incur damages … . Doolittle v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 08126, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW (INCENTIVE COMPENSATION, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW, LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE ARGUMENT SURVIVES THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASSERT THE DEPRIVATION INFECTED THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA (FOURTH DEPT).
ALLOWING LOSS PREVENTION OFFICERS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR BUT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HAD FOUND COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON LIVE MUSIC PERFORMANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE MERITS WERE NOT REACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SCHEDULE A 50-H HEARING AFTER ADJOURNING IT TWICE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY EXECUTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BASED UPON RECANTING TESTIMONY PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT... PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A...