You are here: / / THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET...
, ,

THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city-employer’s motion for summary judgment in this salary dispute should have been denied, and plaintiff-employee’s cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. When plaintiff applied for the job the Notice of Appointment provided by the city indicated her salary would be approximately $47,000. However plaintiff was being paid approximately $41,000. The city argued the $47,000 figure was a mistake, but the evidence submitted by the city did not support that argument. In addition the city argued that plaintiff was an at-will employ. But the Second Department noted that this is a contract action for unpaid salary to which the “at-will employee” concept was not applicable:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of its contractual obligations, and resulting damages … . The Supreme Court’s reliance on the body of law concerning at-will employees was error. The plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action solely seeks to recover unpaid, agreed-to compensation for services rendered while she was actually employed by the City, and thus, the at-will doctrine does not apply … . …

At best, the City’s evidence suggests that after the plaintiff was hired at the Step 4 level, some budgeting concern caused the City to seek to readjust the plaintiff’s salary to a Step 1 level. The City, however, produced no evidence demonstrating that there was any error in the Notice of Appointment or that there was any lawful change to the plaintiff’s salary. Rather, it appears that the City simply reduced the plaintiff’s salary to the Step 1 level, even though she was appointed at the Step 4 level. The City failed to demonstrate that it had any lawful basis for unilaterally changing the plaintiff’s salary. Since the City failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ayers v City of Mount Vernon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07230, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

You might also like
Conversion Action Can Not Be Based Upon Funds Which Came Into Party’s Possession Lawfully (Down Payment)
Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test
THE PURPORTED REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT TO REDUCE COVERAGE AFTER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IS UNENFORCEABLE, THE INSURER IS LIABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CORD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL MAY HAVE BEEN OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS... PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS SHE WAS CROSSING...