Michael Zaitsev v. Salomon Brothers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claim for unpaid wages under New York Labor Law § 190 et seq. was properly dismissed where plaintiff “can prove no contract that will satisfy the Statute of Frauds” (citing Tierney, 189 A.D.2d at 632, 592 N.Y.S.2d at 703)
• dismissing “claim for unpaid wages under New York Labor Law § 190 et seq.” because no enforceable contractual right to wages existed
• “The essential terms of an employment contract include compensation and duration.” (citing Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48, 54 (1953))
• where an oral agreement’s “performance within one year depends upon an act solely within the control of the party seeking to enforce the oral agreement [such as voluntary termination], the Statute of Frauds remains applicable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).