Jennings v. Huntington Crescent Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jennings v. Huntington Crescent Club

120 A.D.3d 1394, 993 N.Y.S.2d 139

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 24, 2014

Docket2013-04142

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1394 (Jennings v. Huntington Crescent Club) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jennings v. Huntington Crescent Club, 120 A.D.3d 1394, 993 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Labor Law § 193 to recover wages wrongfully withheld, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis III, J.), dated March 13, 2013, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the second, fourth, and fifth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover unpaid wages related to bonuses, annual raises, and security services allegedly provided by the plaintiff. Accepting as true the factual allegations set forth in the complaint in support of those causes of action, and according to the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference to be drawn therefrom (see Minovici v Belkin BV, 109 AD3d 520, 521 [2013]), it cannot be reasonably inferred that the defendants withheld wages to which the plaintiff was entitled. The allegations, taken as true, would establish that the plaintiff was an at-will employee (see Horn v New York Times, 100 NY2d 85, 90-91 [2003]). “When there is an at-will employment relationship, the employer may unilaterally alter the terms of employment, and the employee may end the employment if the new terms are unacceptable” (Minovici v Belkin BV, 109 AD3d at 523). Here, the plaintiff’s allegations reflect that he ratified the actions of which he now complains by choosing to remain in the defendants’ employ (see Kronick v L.P. Thebault Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 648, 648-649 [2010]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover unpaid wages related to bonuses, annual raises, and security services allegedly provided by the plaintiff.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Labor Law § 193 to recover wages wrongfully withheld, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis III, J.), dated March 13, 2013, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the second, fourth, and fifth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover unpaid wages related to bonuses, annual raises, and security services allegedly provided by the plaintiff. Accepting as true the factual allegations set forth in the complaint in support of those causes of action, and according to the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference to be drawn therefrom (see Minovici v Belkin BV, 109 AD3d 520, 521 [2013]), it cannot be reasonably inferred that the defendants withheld wages to which the plaintiff was entitled. The allegations, taken as true, would establish that the plaintiff was an at-will employee (see Horn v New York Times, 100 NY2d 85, 90-91 [2003]). “When there is an at-will employment relationship, the employer may unilaterally alter the terms of employment, and the employee may end the employment if the new terms are unacceptable” (Minovici v Belkin BV, 109 AD3d at 523). Here, the plaintiff’s allegations reflect that he ratified the actions of which he now complains by choosing to remain in the defendants’ employ (see Kronick v L.P. Thebault Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 648, 648-649 [2010]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover unpaid wages related to bonuses, annual raises, and security services allegedly provided by the plaintiff.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1394, 993 N.Y.S.2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-huntington-crescent-club-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack