Tini v. AllianceBernstein L.P., 108 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Tini v. AllianceBernstein L.P., 108 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Clark v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (nysupct, 2013-12-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
(Tini v AllianceBernstein L.P., 108 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2013]; Red Oak Fund, L.P. v MacKenzie Partners, Inc., 90 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2011]; Plaza PH2001, LLC v Plaza Residential Owners LP, 79 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2010]; Morris v 702 E.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jay D. Tini
v.
AllianceBernstein L.P.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 2, 2013.
108 A.D.3d 409
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered June 22, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he is owed salary, commissions, benefits, and other compensation by his former employer, AllianceBernstein L.P. (ABLP). The parties’ agreements allow ABLP to terminate plaintiffs employment “at any time for any reason” and provides for a forfeiture of unvested restricted units (RUs) in ABLE] in the event of plaintiffs termination or resignation. While the foregoing reflects an “at will” employment, the parties’ agreements also contain a provision which requires plaintiff to provide defendants with 60 days’ notice of his resignation and that he would “continue to be eligible for base compensation (salary and/or commissions) and benefits during the notice period,” even though ABLP “may . . . require [that he] discontinue regular duties.”

On or about October 11, 2011, plaintiff gave ABLP 60 days notice of his intent to resign on December 9, 2011, eight days after the expected vesting of his rights in certain RUs in ABLE ABLP then unilaterally reduced the notice period by almost 30 days. Under these circumstances, the court properly determined that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract, as the controlling agreements may be interpreted to entitle him to the continued receipt of the benefits of his employment throughout the 60-day notice period. The construction that defendants seek to impose would render the provision of a 60-day notice period, during which he was to continue to receive his salary and compensation, meaningless and in contravention of rules of contractual construction (see RM 14 FK Corp. v Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 37 AD3d 272, 274 [1st Dept 2007]).

[*410] Furthermore, as unpaid salary and commission constitute 6‘[w]ages” under Labor Law § 190 (1), plaintiff has stated a claim under Labor Law § 198 (see e.g. Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt. L.P., 85 AD3d 674, 675 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and Feinman, JJ.