Orgurchak v. Merrill

New York Supreme Court

Orgurchak v. Merrill

178 Misc. 872, 36 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1727

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 Misc. 872 (Orgurchak v. Merrill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orgurchak v. Merrill, 178 Misc. 872, 36 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1727 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

McCook and Miller, J J., concur.

McLaughlin, J.

I dissent. I am in favor of reversing in this case. Section 684 of the Civil Practice Act provides for an execution against “ the wages, debts, earnings, salary.” The word ‘‘ earnings ” is much more comprehensive and broader than the mere term “ wages.” (Burns v. Maurer, 72 Misc. 481.) There does not appear to be any reason why the word “ earnings ” should not include the tips received by a waitress. She would not receive these tips except for the fact that she is employed in her employer’s restaurant. The employer, in fixing the salary of a waitress, takes into consideration the fact that she will receive a certain amount by way of tips, and to that extent it may be said that the tips are part of the amount of salary paid to the employee. The tips received by a waitress are not merely incidental. They are in every sense a real part of her earnings. Under the circumstances, I favor reversal.

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

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

McCook and Miller, J J., concur.

McLaughlin, J.

I dissent. I am in favor of reversing in this case. Section 684 of the Civil Practice Act provides for an execution against “ the wages, debts, earnings, salary.” The word ‘‘ earnings ” is much more comprehensive and broader than the mere term “ wages.” (Burns v. Maurer, 72 Misc. 481.) There does not appear to be any reason why the word “ earnings ” should not include the tips received by a waitress. She would not receive these tips except for the fact that she is employed in her employer’s restaurant. The employer, in fixing the salary of a waitress, takes into consideration the fact that she will receive a certain amount by way of tips, and to that extent it may be said that the tips are part of the amount of salary paid to the employee. The tips received by a waitress are not merely incidental. They are in every sense a real part of her earnings. Under the circumstances, I favor reversal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Misc. 872, 36 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orgurchak-v-merrill-nysupct-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack