From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klepner v. Dorfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 17, 1998
256 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).


It is undisputed that plaintiff, an attorney, was employed as general counsel and assistant to the president of the now defunct Codata Corporation from December 23, 1976 until March 21, 1980, at a starting annual salary of $30,000. In 1981, he commenced an action for breach of contract against Codata and its president, seeking to recover his unpaid salary as well as reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Law § 198 Lab. (1-a), and obtained a judgment against Codata in the amount of $104,372.58. When an execution on his judgment was returned unsatisfied, plaintiff commenced an action, seeking to recover his judgment against Codata by enforcing it pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 630 Bus. Corp. against defendants Bertrand Dorfman, Arthur Dorfman, Schroder Wertheim Co., Inc. (Wertheim) and Narragansett Capital Corp., allegedly four of the ten largest shareholders of Codata. Wertheim then commenced a third-party action, seeking contribution from third-party defendant C.B. Sung and plaintiff commenced a second action against Wertheim and Sung.

In granting defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaints, the IAS Court, in separate decisions, held, pursuant to the Court of Appeals' holding in Bristor v. Smith ( 158 N.Y. 157), that plaintiff lacks standing to bring a cause of action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 630 Bus. Corp. inasmuch as an attorney, such as plaintiff, is not an "employee" within the meaning of the statute. However, unlike the instant case where plaintiff was a full-time salaried employee of Codata, who throughout his employment was under the direction and control of Codata's managers and officers, in Bristor v. Smith (supra), there was no claim that the corporation contracted for all of plaintiff's time to the exclusion of other clients, the plaintiff's office was not on the corporate premises, and his services were not rendered within the corporate domain ( Bristor v. Kretz, 22 Misc. 55, 59, affd sub nom. Bristor v. Smith, 29 App. Div. 624, affd 158 N.Y. 157, supra). Thus, while "it seems clear and has been held that an attorney employed by the corporation, but not to the exclusion of his other clients, does not come within the terms of the statute" ( Evans v. Stern Co., 270 N.Y. 177, 183, citing Bristor v. Smith, supra), "[p]laintiff's [undisputed] circumstances are not comparable to those of the attorney in the Bristor case (supra) on which defendants rely" ( Moses v. Polk, 251 A.D.2d 75, 76).

As to plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, factual issues are presented as to Wertheim's liability and the adequacy of plaintiff's notice that cannot be resolved on these records. Inasmuch as we are remanding these separate actions for further proceedings, it is appropriate to consolidate them at this juncture.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Klepner v. Dorfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 17, 1998
256 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Klepner v. Dorfman

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE M. Page 164 KLEPNER, Appellant, v. BERTRAND DORFMAN et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 17, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 532