Under the faithless servant doctrine, "[o]ne who owes a duty of fidelity to a principal and who is faithless in the performance of his [or her] services is generally disentitled to recover his [or her] compensation, whether commissions or salary" ( Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d 928, 928, 394 N.Y.S.2d 626, 363 N.E.2d 350, citing Restatement [Second] of Agency § 469 ). The faithless servant doctrine applies when an employee-agent breaches their duty of loyalty owed to the employer-principal (seeFeiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d at 928, 394 N.Y.S.2d 626, 363 N.E.2d 350 ; Two Rivs. Entities, LLC v. Sandoval, 192 A.D.3d 528, 529, 146 N.Y.S.3d 1 ; G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v. Lazzari, 44 A.D.3d 95, 101, 840 N.Y.S.2d 378, affd 10 N.Y.3d 941, 862 N.Y.S.2d 855, 893 N.E.2d 133 ; see also Restatement [Second] of Agency § 13 ). However, there is no obligation on the part of an employee to remain with their employer in the absence of a contractual agreement (see generallyFeiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d at 928, 394 N.Y.S.2d 626, 363 N.E.2d 350 ).

"[T]he faithless servant doctrine states that an employee or agent who is faithless in the performance of his or her duties [to the principal] is not entitled to recover salary or commission." (Two Rivers Entities, LLC v Sandoval, 192 A.D.3d 528, 529 [1st Dept 2021] [citations omitted].)

"[T]he faithless servant doctrine states that an employee or agent who is faithless in the performance of his or her duties [to the principal] is not entitled to recover salary or commission." (Two Rivers Entities, LLC v Sandoval, 192 A.D.3d 528, 529 [1st Dept 2021] [citations omitted].)

"The faithless servant doctrine states that an employee or agent who is faithless in the performance of his or her duties is not entitled to recover either salary or commission" (Two Rivers Entities, LLC v Sandoval, 192 A.D.3d 528, 529, 146 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]). Plaintiffs stated a cognizable cause of action against defendant Ma under the faithless fiduciary/servant doctrine as they allege that he took advantage of his role with the company to divert assets and misappropriate funds.

Thus, like the law firm associate in Chung, defendant's conduct in referring the Ferraioli matter to another law firm, while still employed by plaintiff, was a breach of his duty of loyalty, making him liable for damages under the faithless servant doctrine. Plaintiff is entitled to the entire referral fee, with interest (see, Two Rivers Entities, LLC v Sandoval, 192 A.D.3d 528, 529 [1stDept 2021] ["the faithless servant doctrine states that an employee or agent who is faithless in the performance of his or her duties it not entitled to recover either salary or commission"]; Epstein Eng'g P.C. v Cataldo, 101 A.D.3d 552, 552 [1st Dept 2012] ["A faithless servant must account not only for profits attributable to clients poached from the principal, but for all profits ascribable to the wrongful diversion of business"]). Although plaintiff would also be entitled to the salary paid to defendant during the period of disloyalty (see, Chung, supra), the complaint only speaks in terms of the referral fee received by Chung from Weitz & Luxenberg and not in terms of his compensation received from plaintiff (see, complaint, passim).

Moreover, under the faithless servant doctrine, "[a]n employee forfeits his right to compensation for services rendered by him if he proves disloyal" (Visual Arts Found., Inc. vEgnasko, 91 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2012] [internal citations omitted]; see also Two Rivers Entities, LLC v Sandoval, 192 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2021] ["faithless servant doctrine states that an employee or agent who is faithless in the performance of his or her duties is not entitled to recover either salary or commission"]; In re Blumenthal, 40 AD3d 318 [1st Dept 2007] [finding "appellant was a faithless servant, and that her acts of faithlessness warrant disgorgement of all compensation paid after the first such act"]).