It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law article 6 action seeking to recover a sales director bonus that allegedly constituted "a `wage' as said term is defined in [Labor Law] § 190 (1)." We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The terms of the bonus plan conclusively establish that the bonus was "dependent, at least in part, on the financial success of [defendant]," and the bonus therefore did not constitute a wage within the meaning of Labor Law § 190 (1) ( Truelove v Northeast Capital Advisory, 95 NY2d 220, 224; see Guiry v Goldman, Sachs Co., 31 AD3d 70, 71).