Kasoff v. KVL Audio Visual Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kasoff v. KVL Audio Visual Services, Inc.

106 A.D.3d 470, 965 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedMay 9, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 470 (Kasoff v. KVL Audio Visual Services, Inc.) 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

Kasoff v. KVL Audio Visual Services, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 470, 965 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 18, 2012, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff a total amount of $215,672.72, inclusive of double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike that part of the judgment awarding double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and to remand for recalculation of interest and total judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This Court’s prior order (see Kasoff v KVL Audio Visual Servs., Inc., 87 AD3d 944 [1st Dept 2011]) awarded plaintiff the full amount of his Miscellaneous commission claim ($47,731.47) as a sanction for defendants’ intentional interference with discovery orders and alteration of critical discoverable documents (see Sony Corp. of Am. v Savemart, Inc., 59 AD2d 676 [1st Dept 1977]).

However, plaintiff was not entitled to double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as allowed under Labor Law § 191-c. That provision is limited to “sales representa[471]*471tive[s]” who work as independent contractors pursuant to contracts with a principal as defined in Labor Law § 191-a, and here, plaintiff was employed by defendants, which made him a “[Commission salesperson[ ],” as that term is defined in Labor Law §§ 190 (6) and 191 (1) (c). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 18, 2012, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff a total amount of $215,672.72, inclusive of double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike that part of the judgment awarding double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and to remand for recalculation of interest and total judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This Court’s prior order (see Kasoff v KVL Audio Visual Servs., Inc., 87 AD3d 944 [1st Dept 2011]) awarded plaintiff the full amount of his Miscellaneous commission claim ($47,731.47) as a sanction for defendants’ intentional interference with discovery orders and alteration of critical discoverable documents (see Sony Corp. of Am. v Savemart, Inc., 59 AD2d 676 [1st Dept 1977]).

However, plaintiff was not entitled to double damages, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as allowed under Labor Law § 191-c. That provision is limited to “sales representa[471]*471tive[s]” who work as independent contractors pursuant to contracts with a principal as defined in Labor Law § 191-a, and here, plaintiff was employed by defendants, which made him a “[Commission salesperson[ ],” as that term is defined in Labor Law §§ 190 (6) and 191 (1) (c). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 470, 965 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasoff-v-kvl-audio-visual-services-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack