McKibbin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKibbin v. City of New York

269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 696 (McKibbin v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKibbin v. City of New York, 269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by a cement mason employed by the City of Hew York to recover, for a designated period, the difference between salary paid to him and the prevailing rate of wages as determined by the Comptroller of the City of Hew York. During the period in question, plaintiff made no notation upon the official payrolls of the defendant to the effect that his salary payments were received under protest, except for a period aggregating 239% days. Order, insofar as appealed from, granting motion of plaintiff for summary judgment to the extent of the sum of $296, and granting the cross motion of defendant for partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, except as to such part of plaintiff’s cause of action as entitles said plaintiff to the recovery of the said sum of $296, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although municipal employees are within the purview of section 17 of article I of the Hew York State Constitution, that provision does not impair [697]*697the efficacy of section 93e-2.0 of the Administrative Code of- the City of New York. (Finn v. City of New York, 282 N. Y. 153,157.) Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ. [182 Misc. 671.]

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

Action by a cement mason employed by the City of Hew York to recover, for a designated period, the difference between salary paid to him and the prevailing rate of wages as determined by the Comptroller of the City of Hew York. During the period in question, plaintiff made no notation upon the official payrolls of the defendant to the effect that his salary payments were received under protest, except for a period aggregating 239% days. Order, insofar as appealed from, granting motion of plaintiff for summary judgment to the extent of the sum of $296, and granting the cross motion of defendant for partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, except as to such part of plaintiff’s cause of action as entitles said plaintiff to the recovery of the said sum of $296, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although municipal employees are within the purview of section 17 of article I of the Hew York State Constitution, that provision does not impair [697]*697the efficacy of section 93e-2.0 of the Administrative Code of- the City of New York. (Finn v. City of New York, 282 N. Y. 153,157.) Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ. [182 Misc. 671.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckibbin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack