Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, 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 “[bjecause plaintiff resigned shortly after he received his first quarterly payment, he was not entitled to receive the remaining three payments” where “the bonus plan explicitly predicated the continuation of bonus payments upon the recipient’s continued employment status”
• finding that discretionary bonuses fall outside the definition of “wages” under, and therefore outside the protections of, New York Labor law
• holding plaintiff not entitled to receive remaining quarterly awards where agreement “explicitly predicated the continuation of bonus payments upon the recipient’s continued employment status” and plaintiff resigned after receiving first payment
• holding a bonus beyond N.Y. Labor Law § 190(l)’s definition of “wages” because “plaintiffs share in the bonus pool was entirely discretionary and subject to the non-reviewable determination of his employer”
• noting the legislative history of § 190(1) (defining wages) generally and specifically addressing the issue of bonuses
• plaintiff had no contractual right to bonus and his “share in the bonus pool was entirely discretionary and subject to the non-reviewable determination of his employer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).