Fineshewitz v. East River Savings Bank

City of New York Municipal Court

Fineshewitz v. East River Savings Bank

187 Misc. 874, 63 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedMay 16, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 Misc. 874 (Fineshewitz v. East River Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fineshewitz v. East River Savings Bank, 187 Misc. 874, 63 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Keller, J.

Motion of certain employees not now parties to be allowed to intervene as additional parties plaintiff, and the application to add an additional defendant, is granted. It is the intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 et seq.) that all employees, if possible, join in one action. The act specifically so provides and it provides for the bringing of representative suits (Act, § 16, subd. [b]; IT. S. Code, tit. 29, § 216, subd. [b]), though the action is probably not a true “ class ” suit. The defendant seems apprehensive that joinder of new plaintiffs at this time may enable them to avoid the effect of the Statute of Limitations. However, [875]*875that does not seem to follow, as the action will be deemed commenced in the case of each separate plaintiff as of the time when he individually intervened (cf. Simmons v. Rudolph Knitting Mills, 264 App. Div. 871; Slavin v. Trachtenberg, 180 Misc. 324; Morasse v. Gladiton Realty Corp., 187 Misc. 873; Pentland v. Dravo Corporation, 152 F. 2d 851; Robertson v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co., 61 F. Supp. 265). To the extent that the Statute of Limitations may be a. defense against the claims of the plaintiffs now coming into the case, it may be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant.

Settle order on notice to both respondents.

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

Keller, J.

Motion of certain employees not now parties to be allowed to intervene as additional parties plaintiff, and the application to add an additional defendant, is granted. It is the intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 et seq.) that all employees, if possible, join in one action. The act specifically so provides and it provides for the bringing of representative suits (Act, § 16, subd. [b]; IT. S. Code, tit. 29, § 216, subd. [b]), though the action is probably not a true “ class ” suit. The defendant seems apprehensive that joinder of new plaintiffs at this time may enable them to avoid the effect of the Statute of Limitations. However, [875]*875that does not seem to follow, as the action will be deemed commenced in the case of each separate plaintiff as of the time when he individually intervened (cf. Simmons v. Rudolph Knitting Mills, 264 App. Div. 871; Slavin v. Trachtenberg, 180 Misc. 324; Morasse v. Gladiton Realty Corp., 187 Misc. 873; Pentland v. Dravo Corporation, 152 F. 2d 851; Robertson v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co., 61 F. Supp. 265). To the extent that the Statute of Limitations may be a. defense against the claims of the plaintiffs now coming into the case, it may be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant.

Settle order on notice to both respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 Misc. 874, 63 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fineshewitz-v-east-river-savings-bank-nynyccityct-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack