Wing Wong v. King Sun Yee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wing Wong v. King Sun Yee

257 A.D.2d 452, 683 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 196

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 452 (Wing Wong v. King Sun Yee) 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

Wing Wong v. King Sun Yee, 257 A.D.2d 452, 683 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 17, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to enforce an unsatisfied judgment for unpaid wages against shareholders in the employer corporation, plaintiffs’ mere allegation that defendant was an owner of the corporation does not, without more, raise a triable issue as to whether he was an employer for purposes of Labor Law §§ 190 and 650. Additionally, the IAS Court properly found defendant-respondent was not a shareholder of the corporation at the time plaintiffs’ claims accrued. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 17, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to enforce an unsatisfied judgment for unpaid wages against shareholders in the employer corporation, plaintiffs’ mere allegation that defendant was an owner of the corporation does not, without more, raise a triable issue as to whether he was an employer for purposes of Labor Law §§ 190 and 650. Additionally, the IAS Court properly found defendant-respondent was not a shareholder of the corporation at the time plaintiffs’ claims accrued. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 452, 683 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-wong-v-king-sun-yee-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack