From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schuit v. Tree

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 20, 2007
46 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2410.

December 20, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered on or about February 20, 2007, which granted defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law article 6 and quantum meruit causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Bernard D'Orazio, New York, for appellant.

Bond, Schoeneck King, PLLC, Garden City (Mark N. Reinharz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.


The court correctly found that plaintiff, defendant's director of acquisitions and senior vice president, was employed as an executive and therefore has no cognizable claim under Labor Law § 198 ( see Labor Law § 190; see Gottlieb v Kenneth D. Laub Co., 82 NY2d 457). Plaintiffs contention that he was not an executive is inconsistent with the allegations of his complaint and his title and employment contract and therefore insufficient to avoid dismissal of the cause of action ( see LeBreton v Weiss, 256 AD2d 47, 48).

The existence of an enforceable contract covering the disputed issue of plaintiff's compensation precludes his recovery in quantum meruit ( see Zito v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner Harding, 35 AD3d 306, 307).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Schuit v. Tree

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 20, 2007
46 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Schuit v. Tree

Case Details

Full title:MICHIEL SCHUIT, Appellant, v. TREE LINE MANAGEMENT CORP., Doing Business…

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

Date published: Dec 20, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 10061
847 N.Y.S.2d 580

Citing Cases

Tortorella v. Postworks N.Y. LLC

While the issue is factual intensive, contrary to Tortorella's argument, the issue of whether an employee was…

Srivatsa v. Rosetta Holdings LLC

Plaintiff's central claim here, that he was granted an "equity interest" entirely distinct from a…