Linder v. Innovative Commercial Systems LLC

127 A.D.3d 670, 8 N.Y.S.3d 191
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2015
Docket14983 105528/10
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 670 (Linder v. Innovative Commercial Systems LLC) 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
Linder v. Innovative Commercial Systems LLC, 127 A.D.3d 670, 8 N.Y.S.3d 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered October 18, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the seven-year course of dealing between the parties, in which plaintiff received regular statements about his commissions, and the always adhered-to practice of paying the commissions only if and when customers paid on the contracts plaintiff procured, plaintiff earned his commissions upon payment by the customer (see Pachter v Bernard Hodes Group, Inc., 10 NY3d 609, 617-618 [2008]). Thus, absent an agreement expressly providing for posttermination commissions, plaintiff, *671 an at-will commissions salesman, was not entitled to commissions for payments made by customers after his termination (see id.; Yudell v Israel & Assoc., 248 AD2d 189, 189-190 [1st Dept 1998]). Furthermore, since plaintiff was fully compensated under his agreement with defendants, he had no claim for a violation of the Labor Law (see Tierney v Capricorn Invs., 189 AD2d 629, 632 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 710 [1993]). Nor did he have a claim for unjust enrichment, where defendants merely retained the amounts that they were not obligated to pay for posttermination commissions.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Crowe v. Harvey Klinger, Inc.
D. Massachusetts, 2018
MOORE-HAARR, MICHELE v. Z-AXIS, INC.
144 A.D.3d 1656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt
162 F. Supp. 3d 270 (S.D. New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 670, 8 N.Y.S.3d 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linder-v-innovative-commercial-systems-llc-nyappdiv-2015.