Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, PLLC

Decision Date12 May 2003
PartiesSALVATORE FIORENTI et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>CENTRAL EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, PLLC, et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment entered May 28, 2002, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the cause of action alleging conversion is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered December 2, 2002, as, upon reargument, adhered to the determination made in the interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging conversion is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered December 2, 2002, as purportedly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew the motion to dismiss the complaint, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that branch of the motion remains pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536 [1979]).

The plaintiffs commenced this action contending, inter alia, that they were not paid bonuses due them pursuant to employment agreements with the defendant Central Emergency Physicians, PLLC (hereinafter CEP). In the complaint, they asserted causes of action alleging breach of contract, violation of the Labor Law, and conversion. After the parties submitted the controversy to the Supreme Court on stipulated facts, the court determined, inter alia, that the defendants were liable to the plaintiffs for conversion, since the defendant Theodore F. Packy was paid additional compensation for administrative hours beyond that which was contemplated by the employment agreements, thereby reducing the net practice revenues of CEP. Since the employment agreements provided that the net practice revenues were to be used in the formula for determining the plaintiffs' bonuses, the Supreme Court concluded that, by paying additional compensation to Packy, the defendants converted a portion of a specific fund to which the plaintiffs were entitled. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for leave to reargue, but adhered to its determination that the defendants were liable to the plaintiffs for conversion.

"The rule is clear that, to establish a cause of action in conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • In re Express Scripts, Inc., Pbm Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • October 31, 2007
    ... ... the AWP's of drugs in general; and by misleading physicians regarding the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of ... Venture Capital v. Great Central Basin Exploration, L.L.C., 288 F.Supp.2d 473, 479 ... See Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, PLLC., 305 A.D.2d 453, ... ...
  • Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 12, 2011
  • Ass'n Res. Inc. v. Wall.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2010
    ...to a bonus is objective and not subject to [the employer's] discretion or whim”), rev'd in part on other grounds, 305 App.Div.2d 453, 762 N.Y.S.2d 402 (2003). The defendant relies, however, on our statement in Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., supra, 289 Conn. at 782, 961 A.2d 349, that bonuses are......
  • Grgurev v. Licul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 26, 2017
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT