Opinion ID: 1958644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claim and counterclaim

Text: In September of 1966, Winkler filed suit against the company, demanding $4,583.33, or 5/6 of his anticipated year-end salary payment. The complaint alleged that the president of the company, at a meeting in New York, had promised Winkler that he would receive, in August, that portion of the year-end payment which corresponded to the ten months of his work year that Winkler worked prior to his resignation, and that the company refused to make such payment. The company denied Winkler's allegations, and counterclaimed for $1,363.73  which represented the amount which Winkler admittedly owed on his account with the company  and for a sum in excess of $30,000.00 compensatory and punitive damages, for Winkler's alleged piracy of several of the company's employees. This counterclaim was dismissed in toto pursuant to pretrial motions. When the case came to trial, the company moved to have it reinstated. The trial judge decided not to disturb the pretrial order, but agreed that the $1,363.73 would be allowed as an item of setoff, should Winkler prevail. It is from the ruling of the trial court refusing to entertain the company's claims for affirmative relief that appeal No. 4590 is taken. At trial, Winkler abandoned his contention that the basis of his claimed rights in the year-end payment derived from the promise of the company's president, but asserted, instead, that his right to a pro rata portion of the year-end payment was inherent to the employment relationship; that from its inception in 1949, it was understood that the year-end payment constituted an integral part of Winkler's annual salary. The company countered with the theory that the payment was a gratuitous bonus, which as payable or not at the discretion of the company. At the close of the evidence, the trial court made a preliminary finding that the year-end payment represented salary, not a gratuity, and asked the parties to submit post trial briefs on this issue. The company's memorandum took the approach that even if the year-end payment was the type of bonus the payment of which is enforceable, Winkler could not recover because he terminated his employment with the company prior to the time that payment was to be made, and thus forfeited any rights which he might have had in it. The trial court accepted this theory and ruled that it was applicable to the case before it. Judgment was entered in favor of the company. It is from this judgment that appeal No. 4589 is taken.