Kafati-Batarse v Corcoran Group
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 20, 2012
Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
651344/11
[*1]8846 Joyce Kafati-Batarse, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Corcoran Group, Defendant-Appellant.
Saiber LLC, New York (Marc C. Singer of counsel), for
appellant.
Stewart Occhipinti, LLP, New York (Frank S. Occhipinti of
counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 18, 2012, which, upon reargument, denied defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to respond to its discovery request concerning plaintiff's earnings from 2007-2010, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this suit stemming from commissions allegedly owed by defendant to plaintiff for projects and transactions in process when the contract between them was terminated in 2007, information concerning plaintiff's posttermination earnings with defendant's competitors is irrelevant and not discoverable (see BGC Partners, Inc. v Refco Sec., LLC, 96 AD3d 601, 602 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiff's claims concern monies owed for work performed by plaintiff prior to termination of her contract. Accordingly, any money earned by her from subsequent employment is unavailable for use by defendant to offset monies that may be awarded in this case (cf. Donald Rubin, Inc. v Schwartz, 191 AD2d 171 [1st Dept 1993]). Further, the contract between the parties provides for a reduction of plaintiff's commissions based upon work performed by defendant's employees after the contract's termination. Accordingly, defendant's concerns of a windfall recovery by plaintiff are misplaced.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2012
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
