Opinion
No. 17121 Index No. 159167/19 Case No. 2021-02457
01-17-2023
Gina G. Riggi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie Rose Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Bloomberg, L.P., Defendant.
Stulberg & Walsh, LLP, New York (Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for appellant. Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, New York (Cynthia S. Arato of counsel), for respondents.
Stulberg & Walsh, LLP, New York (Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for appellant.
Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, New York (Cynthia S. Arato of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Kennedy, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered May 26, 2021, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit and for violations of Labor Law §§ 193 and 198, and denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to add causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of Labor Law § 193, as the complaint fails to allege that defendants made unlawful deductions from her salary or unlawfully withheld payment of her salary (see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer, 153 A.D.3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]). Plaintiff also fails to refute the invoices that defendants submitted on their motion, which show that her services were paid for in full (see Overton v Egami Group, Inc., 201 A.D.3d 455, 455, 456 [1st Dept 2022], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1177 [2022]).
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under Labor Law § 198, as she does not plead a substantive violation of article 6 of the Labor Law (see Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt, LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 1144-1145 [1st Dept 2019]; Salahuddin v Carver, 163 A.D.3d 1508, 1510-1511 [4th Dept 2018]). To the extent the complaint alleges that plaintiff was denied paid leave and unemployment benefits, such benefits are considered "benefits or wage supplements" under Labor Law § 198-c, which "does not apply to any person in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity whose earnings are in excess of nine hundred dollars a week" (see e.g. Holahan v 488 Performance Group, Inc., 140 A.D.3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2016]; Naderi v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., 135 A.D.3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2016]). In any event, even if, despite her allegations, plaintiff is not a professional for purposes of the Labor Law, she fails to plead that she had an enforceable right to the wages that were purportedly withheld (see Arbeeny v Kennedy Exec. Search, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 177, 180 [1st Dept 2010]; Tierney v Capricorn Invs., 189 A.D.2d 629, 632 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 710 [1994]).
Furthermore, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend her complaint, as the proposed additional causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are palpably insufficient (see WDF, Inc. v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 170 A.D.3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2019]).