From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Amato v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 27, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered February 22, 1999, which, in an action to recover a bonus, granted defendants employers' motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Zachary Alan Starr, for plaintiff-appellant.

William H. Pratt, for defendants-respondents.

NARDELLI, J.P., ELLERIN, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.


The action was properly dismissed on the ground that the "Productivity Compensation Plan" that plaintiff claims defendants breached clearly provides that, as an incentive to "retain and recruit key Account Executives";, payment of any "award" is to be deferred for five years and forfeited if, as occurred here, the employee was no longer employed by defendants at the end of such five-year period (see, Hall v. United Parcel Serv., 76 N.Y.2d 27, 36-37; Zolotar v. New York Life Ins. Co., 172 A.D.2d 27, 32). There is no merit to plaintiff's claim that the award he seeks to recover constitutes "wages" within the meaning of Labor Law § 190 Lab.(1) that cannot be forfeited (see, Matter of Dean Witter Reynolds v. Ross, 75 A.D.2d 373, 381).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

D'Amato v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

D'Amato v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

Case Details

Full title:JOHN D'AMATO, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 27, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
701 N.Y.S.2d 431

Citing Cases

Guiry v. Goldman Sacha Co.

The annual award statements recite that incentives are awarded pursuant to Goldman's stock incentive plan,…

Gomez v. Bicknell

However, Gomez was required to stay in employment until the end of the year under the plain language of the…