Munoz v. New York Bus Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. New York Bus Service

199 A.D.2d 86, 605 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11914

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 86 (Munoz v. New York Bus Service) 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

Munoz v. New York Bus Service, 199 A.D.2d 86, 605 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., Roccobono and Parness, JJ.), entered March 20, 1992, which affirmed the judgment of Civil Court (Small Claims), Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), dated September 3, 1991, which awarded plaintiff paid compensation for three weeks vacation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff left his employment two weeks prior to his anniversary date, at which time he would have been entitled to be paid for the three weeks vacation which would have accrued during the preceding year. Defendant, relying on the collective bargaining agreement, notes that the contract states that "vacation pay shall be paid in the anniversary week of each employee” which defendant construes to mean that the right to vacation pay does not accrue until the anniversary date. However, this phrasing is ambiguous, appearing to refer to the time of payment, rather than the accrual of the right to payment, and does not, by its terms, preclude pro-rated vacation pay for employees who are terminated prior to their anniversary date for that calendar year. Defendant’s oral testimony concerning custom and practice does not cure the ambiguity in the contract. Thus, we perceive no error in Civil Court’s disposition.

Finally, there is no indication in the record that the union grievance procedure, the outcome of which favored defendant, foreclosed further judicial relief. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., Roccobono and Parness, JJ.), entered March 20, 1992, which affirmed the judgment of Civil Court (Small Claims), Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), dated September 3, 1991, which awarded plaintiff paid compensation for three weeks vacation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff left his employment two weeks prior to his anniversary date, at which time he would have been entitled to be paid for the three weeks vacation which would have accrued during the preceding year. Defendant, relying on the collective bargaining agreement, notes that the contract states that "vacation pay shall be paid in the anniversary week of each employee” which defendant construes to mean that the right to vacation pay does not accrue until the anniversary date. However, this phrasing is ambiguous, appearing to refer to the time of payment, rather than the accrual of the right to payment, and does not, by its terms, preclude pro-rated vacation pay for employees who are terminated prior to their anniversary date for that calendar year. Defendant’s oral testimony concerning custom and practice does not cure the ambiguity in the contract. Thus, we perceive no error in Civil Court’s disposition.

Finally, there is no indication in the record that the union grievance procedure, the outcome of which favored defendant, foreclosed further judicial relief. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 86, 605 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-new-york-bus-service-nyappdiv-1993.