Bedell v. Abrahams

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bedell v. Abrahams

138 N.Y.S. 418

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.Y.S. 418 (Bedell v. Abrahams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bedell v. Abrahams, 138 N.Y.S. 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a designer of waists. After 2% days’ service, she was discharged for [419]*419having surreptiously made sketches of models, whereupon she brought this action to recover $50, the wages she was to receive for a week’s service.

The evidence justified the court in finding that her discharge was justifiable. Had she been employed by the week, she could not have recovered a pro rata proportion of the week’s salary for the period she actually served; but the defendants’ general manager, by whom she was employed, testified that she was not employed for any particular period, and that her compensation was to be at the rate of $50 per week, and that, “if she worked two days, she gets two-sixths of $50.” Under these circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to recover for the period she actually served.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a designer of waists. After 2% days’ service, she was discharged for [419]*419having surreptiously made sketches of models, whereupon she brought this action to recover $50, the wages she was to receive for a week’s service.

The evidence justified the court in finding that her discharge was justifiable. Had she been employed by the week, she could not have recovered a pro rata proportion of the week’s salary for the period she actually served; but the defendants’ general manager, by whom she was employed, testified that she was not employed for any particular period, and that her compensation was to be at the rate of $50 per week, and that, “if she worked two days, she gets two-sixths of $50.” Under these circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to recover for the period she actually served.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.Y.S. 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedell-v-abrahams-nyappterm-1912.