green
Positive treatment
Issue: fraudulent inducement claimNY ↗
Issue: evolution doctrineNY ↗
36.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…here, the issue of defendants' alleged misconduct by violating the non-solicitation and noncompete provisions of the dca and breaching their duty of loyalty as alleged in the complaint, which, if proven, would unquestionably constitute a termination for cause under the dca, rema…
at p. 445
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson-Lancaster & Assoc., Inc. v. Veritas Constr. Servs., Inc.
“To be found ambiguous, a contract must be susceptible of more than one commercially reasonable interpretation” (Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer, 153 AD3d 443, 446 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of William Mattar, P.C. v. Riley
In addition, we conclude that petitioner's failure to pay respondent that compensation constituted a deduction from wages in violation of Labor Law § 193 (1) ( cf. Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449-450 [1st Dept 2017]; Miles A. Kletter , D.M.D. & Andrew S. Levine , D.D.S. , P.C. v Fleming , 32 AD3d 566, 567 [3d Dept 2006]; see generally Doolittle , 126 AD3d at 1522 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lei Linwang v. Sheridan Amherst, LLC
We conclude, on the record before us, that the court erred in relying solely on the doctrine of contra proferentem to conclude that the tenant does not owe real estate taxes and insurance payments under the lease, inasmuch as "it cannot be assumed that all relevant extrinsic evidence has been presented at this stage of the litigation" ( Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 448 [1st Dept 2017]; see Birdsong Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. , 101 AD3d at 1737).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frances v. Klein
Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 193(1) cause of action, as a wholesale withholding of payment does not constitute a "deduction" within the meaning of Labor Law § 193 ( Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Kanthan v Tagstone Tech., LLC , 224 AD3d 593 , 593 [1st Dept 2024]; Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors, LLC , 200 AD3d 484 , 485 [1st Dept 2021]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bedin v. Verni
Brief at 9-10; citing, inter alia, Perella Weinberg Partners, LLC v Kramer, 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017] [Perella]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
My Mavens, LLC v. Grubhub, Inc.
Accordingly, “[g]eneral allegations of lack of intent to perform are insufficient; rather, facts must be alleged establishing that the adverse party, at the 49 time of making the promissory representation, never intended to honor the promise.” Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v. Kramer, 153 A.D.3d 443, 449 (1st Dept. 2017). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v. Kramer
(2×)
On appeal, the Appellate Division held: "Here, the issue of defendants' alleged misconduct by violating the non-solicitation and noncompete provisions of the DCA and breaching their duty of loyalty as alleged in the complaint, which, if proven, would unquestionably constitute a termination for cause under the DCA, remains an issue of fact to be determined by the jury at trial" ( Perella Weinberg Partners, LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raparthi v. Clark
Labor Law § 193 states "[n]o employer shall make any deduction from the wages of an employee, except deductions which . . . are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and are for the benefit of the employee." This section relates only to unlawful "deductions" from wages ( see Kolchins v Evolution Mkts. , Inc., 182 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2020] [failure to pay a "Production Bonus" was a "wholesale withholding of payment," and not a deduction within the meaning of Labor Law § 193], citing Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer, 153 AD3d 443, 449-450 [1st Dept 2017]; Stec v Passport Br…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vergara v. Mission Capital Advisors, LLC
The complaint fails to state a claim for violation of Labor Law § 193, as it only alleges a wholesale withholding of payment, and not a specific deduction from wages ( see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vergara v. Mission Capital Advisors, LLC
The complaint fails to state a claim for violation of Labor Law § 193, as it only alleges a wholesale withholding of payment, and not a specific deduction from wages ( see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LOGICAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC. v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
More specifically though, if a plaintiff claims that the defendant intended to fraudulently induce the plaintiff, the plaintiff must allege facts establishing that the defendant, “at the time of making the promissory representation, never intended to honor the promise.” Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v. Kramer, 153 A.D.3d 443, 449 (N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
King Penguin Opportunity Fund III, LLC v. Spectrum Group Mgt. LLC
"General allegations of lack of intent to perform are insufficient; rather, facts must be alleged establishing that the adverse party, at the time of making the promissory representation, never intended to honor the promise" ( Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]; see Cronos Grp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kolchins v. Evolution Mkts., Inc.
Kolchins's Labor Law § 193 claim was correctly dismissed, because Evolution's failure to pay the Production Bonus constitutes a "wholesale withholding of payment," which is not a "deduction" within the meaning Labor Law § 193 ( Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449-450 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stec v. Passport Brands, Inc.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 193 claim was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not allege that defendants made deductions from his salary, and withholding of payment is not actionable under this statutory section ( see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449-450 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Goldberg v Jacquet , 667 Fed Appx 313, 314 [2d Cir 2016]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alden Global Value Recovery Master Fund, L.P. v. KeyBank N.A.
Corp. , 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998])" ( Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 446 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Standard General L.P. v. Dov Charney
As explained below, this defense fails under both New York and Delaware law because the oral misrepresentations Charney purports to have relied on directly conflict with the express written terms of the Agreements, making any purported reliance by Charney unreasonable.92 Under New York law, in order to prove fraudulent inducement, a party must establish that there was a “misrepresentation of a material fact, which was known by [the adversary] to be false and intended to be relied on when made, and that there was justifiable reliance and resulting injury.”93 New York courts find it 92 Given…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yizheng Zhao v. Evans
However, if the terms of the lease are not clear from the four corners of the document, and extrinsic evidence is needed to interpret those terms, then this further raises an issue of fact (see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer, 153 AD3d 443, 446 [1st Dept 2017] [stating that when interpreting the terms of an ambiguous contract, if the “ ‘determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then such determination is to be made by the jury’ ”], quoting Hartford Ac…
discussed
Cited "see"
Tahari v. Narkis
Supreme Court also correctly denied the motion to dismiss the cause of action for fraud for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3016[b]; see Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer , 153 AD3d 443, 449 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Danusiar v. Auditchain USA, Inc.
The defendants do not make citation to any New York Court of Appeals decision in support of their argument that “Section 193 has nothing to do with failure to pay wages or severance benefits, governing instead the specific subject of making deductions from wages.” New York lower courts are divided on this issue, with some courts finding that failure to pay earned wages constitutes an unlawful deduction from the wages, see, e. g., Zinno v. Schlehr, 175 A.D.3d 843 , 844, 107 N.Y.S.3d 220 , 221 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2019) (failure to pay the plaintiff “the full amount of the additional com…
discussed
Cited "see"
Danusiar v. Auditchain USA, Inc.
The defendants do not make citation to any New York Court of Appeals decision in support of their argument that “Section 193 has nothing to do with failure to pay wages or severance benefits, governing instead the specific subject of making deductions from wages.” New York lower courts are divided on this issue, with some courts finding that failure to pay earned wages constitutes an unlawful deduction from the wages, see, e. g., Zinno v. Schlehr, 175 A.D.3d 843 , 844, 107 N.Y.S.3d 220 , 221 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2019) (failure to pay the plaintiff “the full amount of the additional com…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbott-Marsh v. Arnot Health, Inc.
See e.g., Perella Weinberg Partners, LLC v. Kramer, 153 A.D.3d 443, 449 (1st Dep’t 2017) (holding that plaintiff’s “claims were correctly dismissed because a wholesale withholding of payment is not a ‘deduction’ within the meaning of Labor Law § 193) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fersel v. Paramount Medical Services, P.C.
See, e.g., Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v. Kramer, 153 A.D.3d 443, 449 (2017) (nonpayment of deferred compensation is not a “deduction within the meaning of Labor Law § 193.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zinno v. Frank J. Schlehr, M.D., P.C.
There is no dispute that the additional compensation owed to plaintiff constituted earned "wages" that were "vested and mandatory as opposed to discretionary and forfeitable" ( Truelove v Northeast Capital & Advisory , 268 AD2d 648, 649 [3d Dept 2000], affd 95 NY2d 220 [2000]; see Labor Law § 190 [1]; see also Doolittle v Nixon Peabody LLP , 126 AD3d 1519, 1520 [4th Dept 2015]), and we conclude that defendant's failure to pay plaintiff by June 21, 2016 the full amount of the additional compensation that plaintiff had earned, as required by the parties' agreement, constituted a deduction from …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Daniel N. Clark, Respondent,
v.
Corey Ortega Et Al., Appellants, Et Al., Respondent
v.
Corey Ortega Et Al., Appellants, Et Al., Respondent
2017 4466 101103/17.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 23, 2017.
Gische, Richter, Kapnick, Webber, Kahn.
Published
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about August 11, 2017 unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petition as supplemented by the schedule, filed and served on respondent on the return date of the order to show cause, gave detailed and timely notice of the specific signatures that petitioner was claiming had been erroneously invalidated by the Board of Elections (Election Law § 16-102).
Concur— Gische, J.R, Richter, Kapnick, Webber and Kahn, JJ.