Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc.

185 Misc. 123, 57 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2168
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 1, 1945·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memorandum Per Curiam.

The defendant was not a service establishment within the exemption of clause (2) of subdivision (a) of section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (IT. S. Code, tit. 29, § 213, subd. [a], clause [2]) and plaintiff was engaged in an occupation necessary to the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of subdivision (a) [125]*125of section 7 of the Act (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 207, subd. [a]). (Philips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co., 55 F. Supp. 238, affd. sub. nom. Phillips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co., 149 F. 2d 416.)

The judgment should be modified by striking out the interest included in recovery, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to respondent, and $150 attorney’s fee allowed him on the appeal.

Shientag, McLaughlin and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc., 185 Misc. 123, 57 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

185 Misc. 123 (Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heitmuller v. Berkow
171 F.2d 741 (D.C. Circuit, 1948)
Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc.
270 A.D. 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Barb v. Manhattan Laundries, Inc.
188 Misc. 18 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1946)