You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRED SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS; THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS SERVED BY PRIORITY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIED MANNER OF SERVICE DEPRIVED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MOTION.
Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile
IN A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY BY PHONE DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT, EVEN IF THE COMMUNICATION WAS REDUCED TO WRITING; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THREE OF FOUR NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; WITH RESPECT TO ONE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT, THE JURISDICTION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST A DELAWARE DISSOLVED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION HAS NOT BEEN NULLIFIED (FIRST DEPT).
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE WAS OVERLY BROAD; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FIRST 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

THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS... COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS...